Madhya Pradesh High Court
Golu @ Anjul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-13980-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 13980 of 2023
(GOLU @ ANJUL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 18-06-2025
Smt. Neelam Jain, Advocate for appellants.
Shri Yash Soni, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent - State.
Shri Jai Bhawsar, Advocate for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.14/2025.
This is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail on behalf of appellant No.2-Ravindra alias Deepu Parmar S/o Shri
Lakhan Singh Parmar, on the ground that firstly prosecutrix herself has
admitted that when photograph of Ravindra @ Deepu was shown to her,
then she admitted that there may be difference in the
photographs. Reading from the evidence of this witness PW/2, in
paragraph 25, it is submitted that when photograph of accused Ravindra
was shown as contained in Article 'A-3', then prosecutrix stated that he is
not Deepu, then said that he is identical to Ravindra.
It is further submitted that PW/3 & PW/5, have not supported the
prosecution case. It is pointed out that PW/5, stated in para 9 that when
on 09.04.2023, members of 'Parmar' community had collected, then
photograph of Ravindra was shown to the prosecutrix and she had not
identified Ravindra to be involved in the incident. Further, it is
submitted that in the DNA report 'Y' chromosome profile of two accused
2 CRA-13980-2023
persons Golu @ Anjul and that of the present appellant Ravindra @
Deepu Parmar is identical which is possible only when they are identical
twins.
Reading from the report of the Scientific Officer Smt. Nidhi
Gupta, as is contained in I.A.No.679/2025, it is pointed out that since
Ravindra and Golu are not identical twins but are cousin brothers, the
sampling itself is defective.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, in
his turn, supports impugned judgment of conviction and submits that
firstly there are no doubts as to the method of sampling or to the test
which was conducted by the experts.
It is pointed out that in para 11 of the report dated 29.01.2025, it is
mentioned that in the case Autosomal STR DNA profile of accused
persons Golu @ Anjul and Ravindra Parmar was obtained which is
different from each other. In the report produced before the Court details
of Autosomal STR DNA profile has not been given, but it was preserved
separately in the laboratory records and has been enclosed as Annx.4 &
Thereafter, in para 12, it is mentioned that the Autosomal STR
DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of accused Golu @ Anjul
and that of Ravindra Parmar is not identical and on the basis of that
report it can be said that both are not having relationship of Monozygotic
twins.
3 CRA-13980-2023
In para 13, it is mentioned that 'Y' chromosome STR DNA profile
being similar for the accused Golu @ Anjul and appellant Ravindra
Parmar reflects that both are having same ancestry from the side of their
father.
Thus, it is pointed out that the plea taken by Smt. Neelam Jain,
learned counsel for appellants that since appellants are not Monozygotic
twins their why STR profile could not have been same, is answered by
the Scientific Officer in para 13.
For ready reference, paras 11, 12 & 13 of affidavit reads as
under :-
" 11 . izdj.k esa vkjksih xksyw mQZ vatqy o vkjksih jfoUnª ijekj dh
Autosomal STR Mh,u, izksQkby Hkh izkIr dh xbZ Fkh tks fd ,d&nwljs ls fHkUu
gSA izLrqr fjiksVZ esa Autosomal STR Mh,u, izksQkby dk fooj.k ugha fn;k x;k
gSA bls iz;ksx'kkyk ds fjdkWMZ esa la/kkfjr fd;k x;k gSA ¼layXu&4 ,oa 5½
12- izdj.k esa izkIr vkjksih xksyw mQZ vatqy o vkjksih jfoUnª ijekj ds jDr
lsEiy ls Autosomal STR Mh,u, izksQkby izkIr dh xbZ tksfd vkil esa fHkUu gS]
izkIr ifj.kkeksa ds vk/kkj ij ;s nksuks Monozygotic twins ugha gSA
13- vkjksih xksyw mQZ vatqy o vkjksih jfoUnª ijekj ds jDr lsEiy ls Y-
Chromosome STR Mh,u, izksQkby ,d leku izkIr gksus ds vk/kkj ij ;g nksuks
fir`Ro oa'kkuqxr laca/kh gSA"
It is further submitted that there was no occasion to show
photograph of appellant Ravindra specially when it is observed from the
4 CRA-13980-2023
order sheet dated 08.04.2023, that Ravindra had appeared before the
Court through video conferencing. Thus, such tactics on the part of the
counsel for the appellant to misguide the Court will not be of any
assistance.
As far as submission made by Smt. Neelam Jain, learned counsel
for appellants, reading evidence of PW/9, that there is no explanation
that as to how the samples were kept in the police station, is also of no
avail, inasmuch as, counsel has failed to extract any degree of
manipulations or tampering with the samples.
At this stage, Smt. Neelam Jain, learned counsel for appellants,
raises a new argument that prosecutrix is present in the Court. She can
be interrogated. It is further submitted that appellant Ravindra has lost
his father and has a family to support. Thereafter, a new argument is
advanced that there is over population in the jails and we should take
care of that. It is further submitted that telephone location of appellant
Ravindra was not found at the place of the incident.
Before coming to the merits of the case, it is necessary that Courts
are required to be cautious in their approach. Melodramas in the Court
are not required to be attended to as Courts are not theatres, but a place
where justice is dispensed with.
Thus, neither the overcrowding of jails can be a consideration to
grant suspension of sentence nor dependency of the family can be taken
as the sole circumstance to show consideration dehors the merits of the
5 CRA-13980-2023
case.
As far as DNA report is concerned, it is available on record as
Ex.P/44, and that is positive qua both the appellants, namely, Golu @
Anjul and Ravindra @ Deepu. Explanation for similar 'Y' chromosomal
DNA profile is given by the concerned doctor who has filed her affidavit
on 29.01.2025.
Thus, in view of such explanation, submissions made by Smt.
Neelam Jain, learned counsel for appellants are devoid of merits.
Accordingly, we do not find any ground on merits to suspend the
jail sentence of appellant Ravindra alias Deepu Parmar.
Before parting, we would like to observe that the learned trial
Court erred in permitting cross-examination of the prosecution on the
basis of photograph, alleged to be of the accused, despite the fact that
accused was appearing though video conferencing. A word of caution
be sent.
I.A.No.14/2025, is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
