Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2025
1 CRA-8097-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8097 of 2024
(PANKAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-01-2025
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate with Shri Gajendra Singh
Chouhan and Shri Devansh Awal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Per : Binod Kumar Dwivedi J.
Heard on I.A.No.17371/2024, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of the appellant Pankaj S/o Narayan Padihar arising out of judgment dated
18/06/2024 delivered in S.T.No.174/2018 by VII Additional Sessions Judge,
District Ratlam (M.P.).
The appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and 03 years RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on the date of incident 27/08/2018 at about
10:15 pm party was going on in the Farmhouse, where deceased Rakesh and
appellant along with some other persons were present. A pistol was provided
by co-accused Niraj Sakhla to appellant Pankaj and appellant fired a shot
aiming deceased. Bullet landed on the head of the deceased, who died on the
spot. Matter was reported to the Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and
2 CRA-8097-2024
charge sheet was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious anomalies. He further
submits that Vijay, who allegedly lodged Dehati Nalishi along with other
material witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, no eye-witness account is
available to connect the appellant from the commission of crime. Even in
circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances is not complete to conclude
that the appellant is the only person who has caused the death of the
deceased. To bolster his submission, learned counsel has referred statement
of Dr. S. N. Hussaini (PW-20) who conducted the autopsy of the dead body
and also relied upon Ex.-P/36 and P/40 the report received from the Ballistic
Expert, FSL Sagar, wherein HSR and HSL have been found negative.
Appellant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty. It is
further submitted that the appeal being of the year 2024 is not likely to be
heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant.
Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
3 CRA-8097-2024
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant. He further submits that chain of circumstances
available on record is complete to connect the appellant from the commission
of offence of murder of the deceased. Presence of appellant at the time of
incident on spot is not in dispute. Pistol used in offence has also been seized
at the instance of co-accused Niraj, which was provided to him for
commission of offence. Ballistic Expert Report also completes chain of
circumstances, which supports the prosecution case by stating that pistol has
been used for firing the bullet, which has been recovered from the body of
the deceased. On these contentions, learned counsel urges the Court to
dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case and looking to the evidence circumstantial and
otherwise available on record, we are of the view that no case is made out for
suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A.No.17371/2024 stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
