Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rama Singh @ Pappu Kulashte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1616-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1616 of 2025
(RAMA SINGH @ PAPPU KULASHTE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 15-07-2025
Shri Mrigendra Singh - Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Akanksha
Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.3316/2025, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail filed on behalf of appellants, namely, Rama Singh @ Pappu Kulashte
and Yashwant @ Gagan Kulashte.
2. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.12.2024 passed
by the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T.
No.243/2023, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants
for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (fine of Rs.500/-) and R.I. for 3
years (fine of Rs.200/-) with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for
6 months and R.I. for 1 month, respectively. The appellant No.1 Rama Singh
@ Pappu Kulashte is also convicted under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.200/- with
default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month.
3. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the appellants are innocent. They have been falsely
implicated. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, Inspector Anil Patel received
2 CRA-1616-2025
an intimation on his mobile that in BTI colony, Barela, one person is lying
dead. To verify the information, he had gone to the spot, where he met the
villagers and the father of the deceased, when informant Gopal Jhariya stated
that his son Om Jhariya had left the house, saying that he is going to roam
around in Barela, but when he did not return in the evening, then on
06.01.2023 at about 8:00 AM, Sameer Burman informed him that Om
Jhariya is lying in a blood pool at BTI ground. Thus, it is submitted that there
are no eye witnesses to the incident and it is purely a case of circumstantial
evidence. It is submitted that chain of circumstances is not complete,
therefore, appellants are entitled for the benefit of suspension of sentence.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case
o f Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 17 SCC 600 and reading
paragraph 34 of the said judgment, it is pointed out that Supreme Court in
case of Balwan Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 , has held
that there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or
need not prove that the blood groups match. But the judicial conscience of
the court should be satisfied both about the recovery and about the origin of
the human blood.
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that mere presence of
blood stains on the Jacket (Article 'L') recovered from one of the accused
persons, namely, Gagan, is not a sufficient circumstance to hold the
appellants guilty. Hence, it is prayed that the appellants be extended the
benefit of suspension of sentence.
6. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, submits
3 CRA-1616-2025
that presence of blood on the clothes of one of the accused Gagan is a
corroborative evidence and, therefore, it does not call for any interference. It
is also submitted that none of the accused were witnesses of Lash
Panchyatnama and it is not their case that they had handled the dead body, at
any point of time, contacting blood stains. It is also further submitted that
there is seizure of one knife from appellant Rama Singh @ Pappu Kulashte
vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) besides his clothings. Memorandums (Ex.P-10
and Ex.P-11) are also available which corroborate the seizure. Thus, it is
submitted that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of suspension of
sentence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record so also taking this fact into consideration that as per Ex.P-27, Junior
Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, NSCB Medical
College, Jabalpur, opined that dimensions of the sharp edged knife recovered
from Rama Singh @ Pappu were 12.5 inches in length with handle of 4
inches and sharp portion to be of 8.5 inches. Width of the sharp portion is
maximum 1.5 inches with one side having sharp edge and another side blunt.
Dark brown colour spots were available on the knife.
8. Similarly, another knife seized from Gagan Singh Maravi was 15 inches
long with 8.5 inches handle and 6.5 inches sharp edged part. Maximum
width of knife was 1 inch. It was sharp on one side and blunt on another.
Dark brown spots were available on the knife. Injuries which were sustained
by Om Jhariya could have been caused with the aforesaid knives. He clearly
opined that Punch which was seized, could not have caused injuries
4 CRA-1616-2025
mentioned in the postmortem report.
9. Similarly, in the report dated 22.02.2024 sent by Forensic Science
Laboratory, Sagar, it is mentioned that on Article 'D' which is half sleeved T-
shirt of black colour has 8 cut marks and Jacket (Article 'E') of black colour
contains 3 cut marks on right hand side and one cut mark on left hand side.
They observed that Articles 'H' and 'S' when used will produce same pattern
of cut marks as were found on Articles 'D' i.e. the half sleeved T-shirt and
Article 'E', which is a black colour Jacket.
10. In view of such facts, it is not only the presence of human blood, but
also the fact that there is other corroborative evidence, therefore, we are of
the considered opinion that the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of
Madhav (supra) and Balram Singh (supra), will not assist appellants at this
stage for seeking suspension of sentence.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No.3316/2025 fails and is dismissed.
12. List the case of final hearing as per its turn and seniority.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
