Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Singh Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-13786-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13786 of 2024
(ANIL SINGH RAJAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 15-01-2025
Shri V.D.Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Per Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
Heard on I.A. No.26383 of 2024 , which is 1 st application under Section
430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant - Anil Singh Rajawat.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 120B read with Section
302 of IPC read with Section 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
suffer RI for 1 year; and under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced
to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to suffer RI for 1 month vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Constituted under the Madhya
Pradesh Dakaiti Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, District Datia,
Madhya Pradesh in Special (Dacoity) Case No.17/2018.
3. The prosecution case in short is as under :-
(i) On 21.04.2018 at 22.15 complainant Pawan Kumar Yadav (P.W.1)
recorded a Dehati Nalish at District Hospital Datia that today he went alongwith
Jaipal Singh Yadav on his motorcycle to play gambling. Thereafter they were
returning with Akhil Goswami (P.W.2) to Datia. Jaipal was driving the
motorcycle, Akhil was sitting in rear seat and he was sitting in between. When
2 CRA-13786-2024
they reached Sonagir turning, they found that one white coloured Apache
motorcycle was chasing them on which three persons were sitting. When they
reached near Kushwah Dera, the person sitting on middle of Apache motorcycle
fired two gun shots, which hit on jaw and forehead of Jaipal Yadav. They all fell
from the motorcycle. All the three accused persons ran away. The person who
fired gun shot was wearing half shirt and a pink coloured towel was on his neck.
He could not identify all three persons. The information was given to Pappu
Yadav on telephone, who reached there and took Jaipal Yadav to hospital, where
he was declared dead. Police registered FIR at Crime No.124/2018 under Section
302, 34 of IPC against three unknown persons. The police recovered plain soil,
blood stained soil, empty cartridge of pistol, silver colour Hero Honda I-Smart
motorcycle No. MP 32 M.D. 4380 from the spot and recorded the statements of
witnesses. The investigation revealed that Mukesh was driving the motorcycle. He
was arrested. He disclosed in his memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act that he went to office of Dinesh where he met Dinesh Giri, Rajendra
Goswami, Veersingh Gurjar, Sushil Penday and one other person and planned to
kill Jaipal Yadav. Rajendra gave his motorcycle. Dinesh Giri and Veersingh
Gurjar were in Fortuner SUV. The information about the location of Jaipal was
given by Rajendra Goswami. Thereafter they chased Jaipal and committed the
crime. The police registered the FIR against 12 accused persons, out of which 11
were arrested and from them various firearms were seized and after completing
investigation charge sheet was filed. All the accused persons denied the charges.
(ii) The prosecution examined 45 witnesses and exhibited 98 documents.
The present appellant absconded before pronouncement of the judgment. When
he was presented before the trial Court, then after evaluating the evidence came
on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
3 CRA-13786-2024
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no witness named present
appellant in their statements. Only a .315 bore mouser gun has been seized from
the possession of appellant which as per the memorandum of co-accused Sushil
Kumar Pandey was given by him to the present appellant. It is pertinent that co-
accused Sushil Kumar Pandey has been given benefit of suspension of sentence
vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6842/2024. There is
no direct or implied evidence against present appellant as regards his involvement
in the offence. It is also pertinent that the gun which was used in the offence was
seized from the possession of main accused Dinesh Giri. No other arm is used
including the arms seized from other co-accused persons. On mere seizure of an
arm, hatching of criminal conspiracy cannot be presumed against present
appellant. The case of appellant is on parity with other co-accused persons,
namely Sanjay Sirothiya, Rajendra Goswami, Balkishan, Anil Dixit, Harvilas
Parashar, Manish Sharma and Veer Singh @ Tikaram who have been granted
benefit of suspension of sentence by different orders passed in connected
Criminal Appeals. In such premises, learned counsel for the appellant prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer by
submitting that from the medical evidence it is revealed that deceased Jaipal
Yadav died due to gunshot injury fired from the close range. Looking to the
nature of offence, present appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the totality of facts & circumstances of the case and that
Signaturecase of present appellant is identical to the aforesaid co-accused who have been
Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
granted benefit of suspension of sentence, without commenting on the merits of
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 18-01-2025
11:19:57 AM
4 CRA-13786-2024
the case, I.A.No.26383 of 2024 filed by appellant Anil Singh Rajawat stands
allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail
subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
8. The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first
on 21.04.2025 and thereafter on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf.
9. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ANAND PATHAK) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ms/-
