Vinod @ Golu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090077
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnOct-01-2013
AppellantVinod @ Golu
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
cr.a.no.1201/2011 1.10.2013 shri s.c.datt, senior advocate with shri siddharth datt, advocate for the appellants. shri s.k.kashyap, government advocate for the respondent-state. heard on i.a.no.15388/12 which is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant nos.2 and 3 namely jitendra alias jeetu s/o dwarka prasad and jitendra alias jeetu s/o mohanlal dubey. the earlier one was dismissed vide order dated 27/1/12 as not pressed. appellants have been convicted under sections 364, 302 read with 34 and 201 of the indian penal code, for kidnapping abhishek sharma and in furtherance of their common intention, causing his death and throwing the dead body in a field situated by the side of road at village badnagar. learned senior counsel submitted that prosecution had failed to prove that blood stains found on the t-shirt of appellant no.3 were not of appellant himself and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said blood stains were of the deceased. he also contended that there is no reliable evidence at all to connect appellant no.2 with the offence. on the other hand, learned government advocate opposed the prayer. having regard to the arguments advanced by parties, record of the trial court was perused. in our considered view, though entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, yet, prosecution has completed the chain of events by adducing the evidence of last seen proved by deepak sharma (pw6).shailu dangi (pw9) and kamlesh (pw13).as well as, seizure of blood stained t-shirt and rod at the instance of the appellant no.2, which as per forensic science lab report, were found to contain the blood of the same group as that of the deceased. thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. the i.a., therefore, stands dismissed. (ajit singh) (b.d.rathi) judge judge (and)
Judgment:

Cr.A.No.1201/2011 1.10.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on I.A.No.15388/12 which is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Nos.2 and 3 namely Jitendra alias Jeetu S/o Dwarka Prasad and Jitendra alias Jeetu S/o Mohanlal Dubey.

The earlier one was dismissed vide order dated 27/1/12 as not pressed.

Appellants have been convicted under Sections 364, 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for kidnapping Abhishek Sharma and in furtherance of their common intention, causing his death and throwing the dead body in a field situated by the side of Road at Village Badnagar.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prosecution had failed to prove that blood stains found on the T-shirt of appellant no.3 were not of appellant himself and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said blood stains were of the deceased.

He also contended that there is no reliable evidence at all to connect appellant no.2 with the offence.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by parties, record of the trial Court was perused.

In our considered view, though entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, yet, prosecution has completed the chain of events by adducing the evidence of last seen proved by Deepak Sharma (PW6).Shailu Dangi (PW9) and Kamlesh (PW13).as well as, seizure of blood stained T-shirt and Rod at the instance of the appellant no.2, which as per Forensic Science Lab Report, were found to contain the blood of the same group as that of the deceased.

Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

The I.A., therefore, stands dismissed.

(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)