Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anshuman Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2018

                                   1                             CRR-5563-2018
         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    CRR-5563-2018
              (ANSHUMAN SINGH TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1
Gwalior, Dated : 19-11-2018

     Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Shri Prakhar Dengula, Public Prosecutor for the respondent

No.1/State.

Le t notice be issued to the respondent No.2 on payment of process-fee within three next working days, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this bench.

The challenge in this petition is to the order of arraigning the petitioner as an accused by allowing application filed by the prosecution u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. on the ground that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR but during investigation by the superior officer, plea of alibi was accepted and it was found that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime and therefore while filing charge-sheet he was not arraigned as an accused but during trial eye- witnesses PW-1 Chamelibai & PW-2 Rani Bhadoriya, widow and daughter of the deceased, respectively, made statement that the petitioner was present at the scene of crime wielding firearm, which was used by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the probative value of the said revelation of the two eye- witnesses named above by pointing to the suggestions made to the said eye-witnesses contained in paras 4 and 5 of the testimony of the PW-1 and PW-2, respectively contends that the probative value of the said evidence which has come on record is not good enough to 2 CRR-5563-2018 successfully invoke jurisdiction u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. since the same falls short of the requisite standard of more than strong suspicion as held by the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014(3) SCC 92.

Let reply be filed by the State within two weeks.

Meanwhile, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 29/2016 pending before the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

List in the week commencing 3/12/2018. C.c.as per rules.

(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Bu DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE 2018.11.19 17:43:20 +05'30'