Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandu Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-449-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 449 of 2018
(CHANDU KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 13-03-2025
Shri D.S. Raghuwanshi-Advocate for appellant.
Shri D.S. Kushwaha-AAG for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.23940/2024 , fourth repeat application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf
of appellant - Chandu Khan.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and under
Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 13/12/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha,
District Datia (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.92/2014.
It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the trial
Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to appellant. It is further
submitted that appellant has already suffered incarceration for almost 07
years and 11 months as pre and post trial confinement. He fairly submits that
chief-examination of eyewitness Kherunnisha (PW-1) was carried out on
27/03/2015 but cross-examination was carried out on 20/1/2016; therefore,
trial Court applied ratio of judgment delivered in the case of Khujji alias
Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1991) 3 SCC
627 . He further refers Para-21 of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of
2 CRA-449-2018
Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006(12) SCC
306 to bring home the analogy that witness can not be totally unreliable. He
further submits that seizure witnesses have not supported the story of
prosecution. That apart, the cause of death was strangulation. He further
submits that on same set of facts, two accused (brothers of appellant) have
been acquitted. Under such circumstances, he prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application and
prayed for its dismissal with submission that eyewitness-Kherunnisha (PW-
1) is mother-in-law of present appellant and as per case of prosecution, when
present appellant did not allow her daughter Sabina alias Guddan (PW-2) to
visit her maternal home, then by the intervention of police, Kherunnisha
(PW-1) along with deceased Riyaz (brother-in-law of present appellant) took
Sabina alias Guddan (PW-2) from present appellant's house and moved to
their house. In the interregnum period, incident took place. Eyewitness
account goes against appellant. Sabina alias Guddan (PW-2) who is wife of
appellant, also deposed against him in chief examination. He refers
testimony of Doctor-M.M. Shakya (PW-5) and submits that medical injuries
support the incident.
Heard/record perused.
This is a case where appellant is suffering conviction for offence under
Section 302 of IPC. Eyewitness Kherunnisha (PW-1) in her examination-in-
chief deposed categorically about the course of events as unfolded and refers
the role of appellant in categorical terms. At the time of cross-examination,
3 CRA-449-2018
counsel for appellant conveniently escaped from cross-examination and took
time. Thereafter, in cross-examination, said witness fumbled a bit. However,
her evidence is to be seen collectively/holistically rather than in piecemeal.
Sabina alias Guddan (PW-2) also treaded on same path in the manner;
whereby, she was subjected to cross-examination much after the
examination-in-chief was carried out.
Besides that testimony of Doctor-M.M. Shakya (PW-5) refers the
nature of injuries which are similar to the narration of eyewitness account.
That apart, weapon was recovered from the possession of appellant, although
seizure witnesses (PW-13 & PW-15) turned hostile but they admitted the fact
regarding their signature over the memos. The Investigating Officer (PW-9)
has clarified these aspects of investigation.
In the cumulative analysis and looking to the holistic evidence of
eyewitness account and nature of injuries, it appears that appellant has to
suffer some more period of custody.
Accordingly, I.A. No.23940/2024 stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
