Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-5386-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5386 of 2024
(RAJENDRA RATHORE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 31-10-2025
Shri Harshwardhan Sharma appearing on behalf of Shri Unnit
Jhanjhari, learned counsel for the appellant No. 1.
Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant No. 2.
Shri Sonal Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A. No.1583/2025, which is first application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of the appellant No. 1 Rajendra Rathore and appellant No. 2 Deepak
Rathore.
The present appellants have been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 302, 302/34 & 201 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.25,000/- and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- along with usual
default stipulations vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.02.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in S.T.
No.170/2020.
As per prosecution case, on 27.08.2018 Sonubai, sister of the deceased
Vikram lodged an information with Police Station - Khategaon that her
brother Vikram, a driver was working with Kailash Seth, resident of Indore.
On 17.08.2018 for loading the truck, he had gone to Bachhkhal and had not
2 CRA-5386-2024
returned and his mobile phone is switched off. On this information, a missing
persons report was registered vide No. 83/2018. On 28.08.2018 at about 08
AM, Chowkidar - Poonam Chand Balai of Village - Khal informed the police
that in the pond situated in the field of Ramniwas Manju, a dead body of
unknown person is floating. On this, dead body was brought out from the
pond and Merg was registered. In autopsy report, it was found that death has
been caused by strangulating by unknown person, therefore, Crime No.
739/2018 under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC was registered against the
unknown person.
Taking exception to the impugned judgment learned counsel for the
appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Rajendra Rathore
submits that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence where no ocular
evidence is available. Except CDR i.e. Ex.P/34A and location report, no
other evidence is available to connect the appellant from the alleged offence.
Judgment has been passed on conjectures and surmises ignoring material
contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case. Chain of the
circumstance is not complete. Therefore, as per settled principles for cases
based on circumstantial evidence, appellant could not be convicted. He has
also referred statements of Gauri Shankar (PW-11), Sunil (PW-27), Shravan
(PW-28) and judgment para-28. He has fair chance of success in the appeal.
This is an appeal of 2024 and final hearing of the appeal will take sufficient
long time. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant Rajendra Rathore be suspended.
3 CRA-5386-2024
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Deepak Rathore submits
that except memo under Section 27 of Evidence Act, no other evidence is
available against the appellant. PW-15 Bhura has turned hostile. To buttress
his point, he has invited the attention towards para-40 of the impugned
judgment. He submits that even CDR is not available for this appellant. For
turning a case of no evidence against this appellant, learned counsel prays for
allowing IA for this appellant and grant of suspension of sentence and bail.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer on
the ground that deceased was working for appellant Rajendra Rathore. Even
after fetching and taking custody of the truck, he did not inform the police
about the fact that deceased Vikram, his driver is missing. He invites the
attention of this Court towards the information lodged by Sonubai, sister of
the deceased that when appellant Rajendra Rathore did not cooperate in
searching out the deceased and giving an information about him, Sonubai
was compelled to lodge an FIR on 05.09.2018. He submits that chain of
circumstances against the appellant Rajendra Rathore is complete as CDR
and tower locations are evidences available against him along with other
evidence.
As far as appellant Deepak Rathore is concerned, learned counsel for
the State submits that CDR report is not against him, only 27 memo is
available and PW-15 Bhura has turned hostile. On the aforesaid premises,
learned counsel for the State prays for dismissal of the application.
Heard and considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel
for the parties at Bar and perused the record.
4 CRA-5386-2024
As far as appellant Rajendra Rathore is concerned, it appears that CDR
Ex.P/34A and tower location is against him and coupled with the other
connecting evidence available on record, his conduct also indicates his
complicity in the offence. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there are no
case for suspension of sentence is made out for appellant Rajendra Rathore.
Therefore, application on behalf of appellant No. 1 Rajendra Rathore is
dismissed.
As far as appellant No. 2 Deepak Rathore is concerned, looking to the
evidence in totality and in factual matrix of the case, we deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of him.
Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I.A.
No.1583/2025 stands partly allowed.
The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No. 2 - Deepak
Rathore shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he be
released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and on depositing the fine
amount (if not already deposited) with a further direction to appear before
the Registry of this Court on 17.12.2025 and thereafter, on all subsequent
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during the pendency of
the appeal.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
5 CRA-5386-2024
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
