Madhya Pradesh High Court
Irshad @ Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1479 of 2016
(IRSHAD @ RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-03-2023
Shri Abhishek Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.22054/2021, which is the third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant Irshad @ Raja. The first and second applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 13/11/2018 & 06/03/2020 respectively.
The appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23/05/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.185/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- with stipulation and with a direction that substantive jail sentence shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rijwan Qureshi (PW-1), Naved Khan (PW-2) and Sabbir Khan (PW-3) are the interested witness and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in the case to prove the charge leveled against the appellant. He submits that the alleged weapon seized during the investigation was not produced and identified in the Court and the Article for the same has also not been marked. Learned trial Court has further failed to see that human blood, which was found from the weapon and clothes, which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of appellant, has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 3/2/2023 7:01:30 PM 2 not matched with the blood group of the deceased because blood group of the deceased was not identified in the F.S.L. report (Ex.P-19). Therefore, the same cannot be linked to the appellant for commission of the offence. The prosecution has also failed to establish any motive on the part of appellant to cause murder of the deceased. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, but learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is in custody since the date of arrest i.e. 17/06/2015, thereby he is in jail for more than seven and half years. This Appeal is of the year 2016 and is not likely to come up for hearing in near future. Under these circumstances learned counsel prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24 and Niranjan Panja Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 6 SCC 525.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant and prays for its rejection.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and also gone through the citations placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Looking at the Court statement of Dr. U.K. Shrivastava (PW-5), who conducted the autopsy of deceased and scribed the autopsy report (Ex.P-10) and opined that the mode of death could be homicidal. Dr. U.K. Shrivastava Signature Not Verified (PW-5) has also examined the weapon (knife) used in the crime and opined that Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 3/2/2023 7:01:30 PM 3 the injury sustained by deceased Azim Beg could be caused by the seized weapon. The seized weapon (knife) and clothes of the appellant & deceased were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Bhopal and as per the F.S.L. report (Ex.P-19) human blood of ‘B’ group was found on the knife (Article-C), trouser (Article-E) and vest (Articleâ€Â"F), which were seized from the appellant.
Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statements of Rijwan Qureshi (PW-1), Naved Khan (PW-2), Sabbir Khan (PW-
3), Golu Sisodiya (PW-4) and Dr. U.K. Shrivastava (PW-5), in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly. I.A.No.22054/2021 is hereby dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 3/2/2023
7:01:30 PM