Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaydev Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 586 of 2016
(JAYDEV OJHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-05-2022
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vinod Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on IA No. 794/2022, application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for
suspnsion of jail sentence of appellant-Jaidev Ojha.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 24.6.2016 passed in Special
Sessions Trial No. 400076/2013 for the offence under Section 364A of IPC read
with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, alternatively under Section 302/34 of IPC read
with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
The appellant has so far undergone jail incarceration from 28.08.2013 to
02.05.2014during trial and after judgment dated 24.06.2016 uptil now.
As per prosecution story, on 26.08.2013 at about 11.20 pm complainant Narendra Singh Narvariya, resident of Sainik Colony, Pinto Park, Gwalior had lodged a complaint at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior that at around 6 pm on the same day his son deceased Ravindra Narvariya, aged 23 years, had gone to the market but did not come back, therefore, a missing report was lodged at No. 57/2013 and investigation was started. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that one Pramod Singh @ Sonu, brother of second wife (Mamta) of complainant Narendra Singh Narvariya, had accompanied the deceased Ravindra Narvariya @ Chhotu on a motorcycle to the market to buy commodities. Near Birla Hospital, Ravindra had received a phone call. Deceased Ravindra had left Pramod Singh @ Sonu at Gole Ke Mandir crossing and went away on motorcycle. Thereafter, he did not turn up. At about 8.56 in the morning complainant received a mobile call from mobile No. 9165131674, from the other end, his son deceased Ravindra had told him that he has been kidnapped. Thereafter, complainant called back on the same mobile number, the person responded and asked for ransom of Rs.1.5 Crores otherwise threatened that kidnapped Ravindra shall be killed. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, crime case No. 419/2013 was registered 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. During investigation, present appellant Jaidev Ojha and co-accused Mukesh Narvariya (appellant of criminal appeal No. 716/2016) were interrogated. On the statement of co-accused Mukesh Narvariya the deadbody of deceased Ravindra was recovered from the dense bushes, 100 mtrs from the road side of National Highway No.3, Shivpuri Road. The gold chain of deceased Ravindra was recovered from the almirah of Udaiveer, Uncle of co-accused Mukesh Narvariya. Meter wire and wooden bat allegedly thrown by the accused persons in the bushes were also recovered, besides, motorcycle on which deceased Ravindra had gone, was also found parked in the parking of railway station. A Nokiya Mobile of deceased Ravindra was also recovered from the possession of co-accused Raju. All such incriminating articles were recovered on the statements of Mukesh Narvariya and present appellant Jaidev Ojha. Upon submission of final report, the case was made over to the Sessions Court for trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Upon critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, while criticizing the impugned judgment inter alia contended that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. It suffers from the perversity of approach. Relevant evidence has not been considered. Learned counsel tried to further persuade this Court submitting that the seizure memos allegedly prepared at the instance of appellant are false and fabricated. No recovery has been made at the instance of the appellant. One co-accused Raju has been acquitted. Hence, on the ground of parity, the present appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence.
Per Contra, Shri Vinod Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Sessions Court has recorded impeccable finding of fact based on cogent evidence placed on record. The recoveries made pursuant to the statements recorded under Section 27 Memo are not only the deadbody but also the gold chain worn by deceased Ravindra at the time of his death from the almirah of Udaiveer, Uncle of co-accused Mukesh Narvariya, 3 besides, meter wire, wooden bat thrown in the bushes and motorcycle from the parking of railway station. As such, the evidence which led to such recovery having been found to be admissible has been relied upon with due corroboration of the other evidence placed on record. Therefore, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of jail sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the trial Court while examining the evidence placed on record particularly in paras 19, 20, 21, 23 and 27 of impugned judgment, prima facie has reached to the right conclusion. Hence, no case is made out for grant of suspension of jail sentence.
IA No. 794/2022 stands rejected.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2022.05.0
7 13:18:49
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
+05'30'