Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gufran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 23 April, 2014
Cr.Appeal No. 565 of 2014
23.4.2014.
Shri R.S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.
This is an admitted appeal listed today for consideration of I.A. No. 3874/2014, appellant's application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
The same is heard.
Appellant's counsel after taking us through the record of the Trial Court along with the impugned judgment and exhibited papers of the charge-sheet argued that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC only on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution while no eye witness account was available in the matter. In continuation he said that whatsoever circumstances have been considered by the Trial Court on appreciation for holding the conviction against him, the same could not be a foundation to hold such conviction. He also said that after extending the acquittal from the charge of Section 201 of IPC there was no occasion for the Trial Court to convict the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. He also said that the report of Forensic expert with respect of the foot print of the appellant was neither properly prepared nor was proved in accordance with the procedure and, therefore, such report could not be deemed to be sufficient to hold his conviction. He also said that mere recovery of purse and identity card as alleged from the possession of the appellant after one month from the date of incident could not be deemed to be a ground to connect the appellant with the alleged incident. With these submissions, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant by allowing the IA.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by State counsel saying that in the alleged incident a 75 years old person was murdered in his own house. On receiving the information when police agency reached to the spot then on entering in the house the blood stains along with the foot marks were found in the same, were seized. During investigation finger prints and foot prints of suspicious culprits including the appellant were taken out and the same along with the finger and foot prints seized from the spot were sent to the expert of Forensic Laboratory. On carrying out the examination by the expert in the Forensic Laboratory, the foot prints of the present appellant had matched with the foot prints found on the place of the incident while the foot prints of other suspicious persons were not matched with the foot prints found on the place of incident. In continuation he said that besides this, the purse and the identity card of the deceased were also seized at the instance of the appellant from his possession during investigation although at some belated stage but that circumstance also goes against the appellant. He also said that in order to prove the aforesaid circumstance, sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution and in such premises, the appellant does not deserves for grant of bail and prays for dismissal of the IA.
Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the deposition of the concerning expert who examined the foot prints of the appellant with the foot prints which were found on the place of occurrence so also the other evidence relating to the recovery of purse and identity card of the deceased from the possession of the appellant, we have found sufficient prima facie circumstance against the appellant for committing the alleged offence, hence at this stage we are not inclined to suspended the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Consequently, IA is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(U. C. Maheshwari) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge Judge
rao