Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2024
1 CRA-1434-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1434 of 2024
(DEEPAK SINGH BAGHEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 16-10-2024
Shri Akhand Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ravindra Shukla- Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
This appeal is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No. 2265/2024 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 21 (C) read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that in the instant case, provisions of Sections 42, 52 and 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with. Appellant is in jail since 09.04.2021. It is also urged that no documentary evidence pertaining to ownership and possession of the house from which alleged recovery has been made, has been filed. This fact has been admitted by Sub- Inspector Ramnaresh Tiwari (P.W.11). Further, as per deposition of Virendradhar Dwivedi (P.W. 3), land on which the house is situated belong to one Sashi Singh. Prosecution did not examine Sashi Singh and no explanation has been furnished for the same. Further, Sashi Singh has not been made accused in the case. Thus there is no evidence to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR VERMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 14:08:27 2 CRA-1434-2024 establish that the house from which recovery has been made belong to appellant as he is owner or in possession of the same in any capacity whatsoever. It is also urged that seizure witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution story. It is also urged that Devkinandan Mishra (P.W. 4) Constable has also turned hostile. Further, after referring to Para 12 of deposition of Devkinandan Mishra (P.W. 4), it is urged that as per deposition of above witness, seizure and sampling was done in the police Station itself and not on the spot. Thus deposition of P.W. 4 is in contradiction to that of Sub-Inspector Ramnaresh Tiwari/prosecution case. It cannot be said that any recovery was effected on the spot.
Further, learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the instant case, seizure and other proceedings were conducted during day time on 08.04.2021 and articles allegedly recovered from the spot on 08.04.2021 have been deposited in Malkhana Police Station on 09.04.2021 and as per Ex. P/25 they have been deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station on 10.04.2021. Further, as per deposition of Head Constable, Ramsharan (P.W.
9) and Ex. P-26 above articles were received by the witness on 09.04.2021 during the night. It is also urged that in Ex. P-25, it is not specifically mentioned with respect to deposit of four samples that were taken on the spot. Further, after referring to deposition of Sub-Inspector Abhishek Pandey (P.W. 10). it is urged that in examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that he sent samples for FSL examination but in cross-examination this witness has stated that he did not sent any article for FSL examination. It is also urged that during recording of deposition of Ramnaresh Tiwari, articles Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR VERMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 14:08:27 3 CRA-1434-2024 recovered from the spot were not produced. Therefore, recording of evidence of Ramnaresh Tiwari was stopped and thereafter, an inventory was prepared on 30.06.2021, after more than two years of recovery but above inventory and samples prepared during the inventory have not been proved by examining concerned police officer, who got prepared the inventory. On above grounds it is urged that entire proceedings are vitiated and appellant has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect him with the instant offence. Leaned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Cr. A. No. 1443/2023 (Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab) decided on 09.05.2023, Cr.A. No. 13405/2023 (Deenanath Gupta vs. The State of M.P.) decided on 19.07.2024, Cr.A. No. 3157/2024 (Mohammad Taj vs. The State of M.P.) decided on 09.08.2024 and Cr.A. No. 3938/2023 (Manish Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of M.P.) decided on 24.08.2023 . Therefore, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
The prayer is opposed by learned Deputy Government Advocate. After examining the submission of learned counsel for appellant and documentary evidence as well as oral evidence available on record, especially Ex. P-25, P-26 and other proceedings relating to seizure and deposition of Virendradhar Dwivedi (P.W. 3), Devkinandan Mishra (P.W. 4), Abhishek Pandey (P.W. 10) and Ramnaresh Tiwari (P.W. 11), I deem it proper to suspend the sentence.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR VERMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 14:08:27 4 CRA-1434-2024 that appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the concerning trial court, on 13/12/2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C.c. as per rules..
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE vkv Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINAY KUMAR VERMA Signing time: 17-10-2024 14:08:27