Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jafar Raean vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1097-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1097 of 2024
(JAFAR RAEAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 27-10-2025
Shri Anand Nayak - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S K Shrivastava - Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of Advocate General for State of M.P.
Heard on I.A. No.26136 of 2024, which is first application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of Jafar Raean.
2. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.9.2023
passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, (M.P.) in
S.T. No.40 of 2021 whereby the appellant - Jafar Raean has been
convicted under Section 302 of IPC with Life Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of R.I. for two months whereas other
co- accused persons i.e. the family members of the present appellant
have been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges under
Sections 498-A, 498-A/34, 304-B, 304-B/34 and Section 304-B/34 of
IPC.
3. It is submitted that the trial court has disbelieved (PW-2) Guljar
Raean and has not treated him to be an eye - witness. It is a case of
circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstances is not complete. It is
pointed out that the I.O. has not seized CCTV Footage from the bus
2 CRA-1097-2024
stand which would have demonstrated that the appellant was pursuing
his business at the bus stand at Chhatarpur on his hand-cart and was
selling 'Biryani'.
4. It is submitted that as per the evidence of postmortem Dr.
Vishal Shrivastava (PW-10) admitted in para-11 that on the basis of
rigor mortis death could have taken place at around 8 PM. Thus, it is
submitted that reporting the incident at night becomes doubtful. It is also
submitted that as per Nargis (PW-1) the appellant was arrested at 1:00
PM when he was called to his house and reached there alongwith his
hand-cart from the bus-stand. Therefore, in view of defence evidence
and also in view of variance of time of death on the basis of setting of
rigor mortis, it is submitted that its a case of acquittal.
5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the
case of Madhav Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 600
arguing that if human blood group was not found on the object of
offence, then benefit of doubt can be extended in favour of the accused.
6. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate in
his turn supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of
application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
7. After going through the record and reading the evidence, firstly
DW-1 Jaffar Raean is brother of the appellant. Lokendra Singh (PW-15)
C.S.P., I.O of the case in para-13 has clearly stated that there was no
CCTV Footage available at the bus-stand to show presence of the
3 CRA-1097-2024
appellant- accused at the bus-stand.
8. The appellant has not admittedly examined any independent
person who was available at the bus stand -Chhatarpur on the fateful
night to show his presence at Chhatarpur - bus stand beyond 12:00
o'clock at night. Incident took place in the house of the appellant. His
clothings have been found to be soaked with human blood. Injuries as
narrated by Dr. Vishal Shrivastava (PW-10) could have been caused by
the knife seized at the instance of the appellant. Thus, some variance in
the time of death on account of difference in completing setting up of
rigor mortis or its departure are not sufficient to hold that the appellant
is prima facie innocent, specially when the appellant could have
produced the best evidence of alibi by examining independent witnesses
who would have been available at the bus stand at 1:00AM as stated by
the appellant but since he has failed to examine any of these witnesses
nor any application was made for seizure of so called CCTV Footage
from the Cameras installed at or near bus stand, we are of the opinion
that the appellant is trying to take his case beyond the permissible limits
of appreciation of evidence and, therefore, it does not call for any
indulgence.
9. Reliance of placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the
case of Madhav Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 600
arguing that if human blood group was not found on the object of
offence then benefit of doubt can be extended in favour of the accused
4 CRA-1097-2024
is concerned as admitted by Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the
appellant in that case two different weapons of assault were recovered
that distinguishes facts of that case from the present case. Thus, we are
of the view that no case for indulgence is made out.
10. I.A. No.26136 of 2024 fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
