Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                1                                 CRA-6308-2017
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                         CRA No. 6308 of 2017
                                              (SONU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 01-07-2025
                                    Shri Naveen Shrivastava and Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for
                           the appellants.
                                    Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent. There is no proper evidence of last seen. Reading from the

evidence of Bhupendra Pawar (PW-14), brother of the deceased-Jitendra, it is pointed out that this witness has stated that he had seen his brother-Jitendra on a motorcycle along with Sonu, Deepak and Amar Sweeper going towards bus-stand. It is also submitted that in para-5 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that it was a black colour Pulsar on which Sonu and Deepak were sitting along with Jitendra. Sonu was driving the motorcycle whereas Jitendra was sitting in between and Deepak was the last pillion rider.

It is further submitted that it is contrary to the evidence of R.K. Dubey

(PW-10), I.O. of the case, who has deposed that Bhupendra Pawar (PW-14) had informed him that Jitendra was seen on foot along with co-accused persons. Thus, it is submitted that since there is no seizure of motorcycle and there is contradiction in the evidence of R.K. Dubey (PW-10), I.O. of the case, as well as that of Bhupendra Pawar (PW-14) inasmuch as R.K. Dubey (PW-10), I.O. of the case, in para-22 has admitted that Bhupendra had

2 CRA-6308-2017 neither given them the time of witnessing the accused with the company of the deceased nor had informed him as to what was the mode of movement. There is contradiction in the evidence of the I.O. R.K. Dubey (PW-10) as well as witness of last seen Bhupendra Pawar (PW-14). Similarly, it is pointed out that Arti (PW-2), sister of the deceased, has admitted that Jitendra after getting up met Amar who had come to call him and thereafter there is contradiction in the evidence of the cloths which he was wearing at the time of leaving his home and other contradictions as to whether he had freshen up or not. It is also submitted that deceased was wearing certain ornaments which were not recovered. There was no motive and there is no evidence to the effect that deceased was having any affection towards the sister of Amar and wife of Sonu, therefore, when chain of circumstances is

not complete, then in the light of the judgment of Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of this High in Neeraj Vs. State of M.P., I.L.R. 2014 M.P. 1610 , conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutrix, opposes the aforesaid prayer and supports the impugned judgment.

Arguments heard.

Reserved for judgment.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE ts