Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sunil Kumar @ Murlidhar @ Murli @ Daduaa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 20 January, 2014

                                       1
                                                M.Cr.R No.16371 of 2013



20.01.2014
             Shri Guljar Rajpur, counsel for the applicants.
             Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondent/State.

Heard.

On behalf of the applicants/ accused, this petition is preferred under section 439 of the Cr.P.C as he is in custody since 9.7.13 in connection of Crime No.249/13 registered against them at PS Barhi, District Katni for the offence punishable under section 341,302/34 of the IPC.

Applicants counsel after taking me through para-14 of the deposition of Sunil Kachhi (PW 1) argued that according to this witness his father (deceased) died due to single injury on his head and this witness could not see that which applicant has caused such fatal injury on the head of his father. In this background, by referring the deposition of Dr. Archana Grover, he said that according to opinion of such doctor deceased died due to head injury and in view of the aforesaid part of the deposition of the witness, the case of the prosecution is doubtful, therefore, applicants deserves for grant of bail and prayed to allow this petition.

On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA with the assistance of the case diary said that immediately after the incident, on lodging the FIR, the name of the applicants with their act attributed in the alleged incident for causing the murder of Mahadev Kachhi have been stated and on recording the deposition Sunil Kachhi (PW 1) so also Khabsi Bai (PW 2) the wife of the deceased, have supported such story putforth in the FIR. He has further said that according to the postmortem report deceased sustained as many as three antemortem injuries as stated by the aforesaid doctor in her deposition referred by the applicants counsel. Such evidence adduced by the parties is to be appreciated by the trial court at final adjudication but at present in view of the prima facie circumstance the applicants do not deserve for grant of bail.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the case diary along with the FIR, interrogatory statements of the witnesses so also the aforesaid depositions of Sunil Kachhi (PW 1) and Khabsi Bai (PW 2) along with the deposition of Dr. Archana Grover, I have found sufficient prima facie circumstance against the applicants for committing the alleged offence and at this stage, I do not want to appreciate such evidence led by the prosecution as the same is to be appreciated by such court at the appropriate stage, hence without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL