[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-6252-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6252 of 2024
(SAGAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 18-02-2026
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sonal Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 12723/2025, which is first application under Section 430
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of jail sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant - Sagar Singhal.
2. The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC, Sections 25(1-B)(B) & Section 25 of Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo RI for Life imprisonment, R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for 2
years & R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- & Rs.1,000/-
respectively with default stipulation.
3. As per prosecution case, on 11.09.2017 complainant Geetasingh filed a
complaint wherein she stated that her brother-in-law Dheeraj Singh used to reside
at a room on their 5 bigha farm since 2004. Thereafter, at around 11:00 am the
police informed the complainant that the body of Dheeraj has been recovered from
Unhel Road, near Guuda Village. The body reflected signs of injuries caused by a
sharp weapon. It was stated that the crime was committed by unknown persons.
On the basis of the above narration, an FIR bearing No.464/2017 was registered
for offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120B, 34 IPC along with 25, 27
Arms Act.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence and also on the testimonies of Santosh (PW-8) & Geeta
2 CRA-6252-2024
(PW-1) who were seemed to be last seen witness by the prosecution. So far as the
Santosh (PW-8) is concerned, he has not supported the prosecution case. He also
argued that one of the convict Ajay has been granted suspension of jail sentence
and bail by the Apex Court disbelieving the testimony of Geeta (PW-1). He further
argued that thus the conviction remains only on the basis of DNA Report and
conviction cannot be based on the presumption under Section 293 of Cr.P.C.
without examining an expert.
In support of his submissions, he has relied on a judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 773 in which it has been held that DNA
report cannot be accepted merely because it has been exhibited in evidence by the
Investigating Officer without examining the expert who conducted the DNA
examination. He further relied on a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Prakash Vs. State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 1973/2013
decided on 28.04.2025 . Relying on the said judgment, the appeal was allowed and
conviction was set aside.
Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant
has not been convicted solely on the ground of the DNA report but apart from that,
there is recovery of knife on the memorandum of the appellant and the DNA on
the said knife, has been found to be positive. He further argued that seizure of
weapon has been proved by the prosecution witnesses Prakash (PW-10) and
Mohan (PW-11).
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the evidence and
the judgment in the case of Karandeep Sharma (Supra) , we find that in para 39, 40
& 51 of Karandeep Sharma (Supra) , the Apex Court considered that the
prosecution could not prove that the sample which was taken by the prosecution,
3 CRA-6252-2024
was kept in a safe custody in Malkhana etc.
Under the aforesaid facts, the Apex Court held that the conviction cannot be
based only on the DNA report merely because it was exhibited without
examination of the expert. In the present case, no such question was raised to the
Investigating Officer regarding the safe custody of the sample /knife in the
Malkhana etc. Thus, the judgment relied by the counsel for the appellant in the
case of Karandeep Sharma (Supra) and Prakash (Supra) are distinguishable on the
facts of the present case. In the present case, apart from that the seizure of knife
was proved by the prosecution witnesses Prakash (PW-10) and Mohan (PW-11)
and so far taking of sample and sending it to the DNA is concerned, the same has
been proved by Investigating Officer (PW-21) and there was no cross-examination
on the said point.
So far the order of suspension of jail sentence in the case of convict Ajay by
Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, there was no seizure of knife and DNA
against him. The allegation against him that he was in the Car in which the dead
body of the deceased was being taken alongwith the other accused persons. Thus,
the case of the present appellant is distinguishable from the convict Ajay who had
been granted suspension of sentence by the Apex Court.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground for grant of suspension
of jail sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 12723/2025 is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vindesh
