This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is hereby dismissed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of SANJAY V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH through HON’BLE JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that on 03.10.2005, at about 10.00 PM, while complainant Satyanarayan was standing at square near his residence 38/2, Jai Bhawani Nagar, Indore along with his friends Balli Kushwah, Pappu Ghatge, Pappu Sharma, Manoj Solanki and brother deceased Kamal making collection for preparations of Nav Durga puja, appellant Sanjay and coaccused Mukesh came there and took the deceased Kamal with them on the motorcycle, which appellant Sanjay was driving whom deceased referred as his brother-in-law. Deceased Kamal thereafter did not return home. Next day, on being enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased, appellant Sanjay informed that he dropped Kamal outside his house on the same night. When deceased did not return till late night, then at about 23.55 hours, missing person’s report was lodged by Rakesh at police station Aerodrome, Indore. Thereafter, on 05.10.2005, Satyanarayan made a written complaint to SHO Police Station Aerodrome, Indore against the appellant and co-accused Mukesh on the basis of suspicion as deceased had a fight with the appellant some 7-8 days prior to the date of incident and co-accused Mukesh on being inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased told different version than that of appellant that he dropped the deceased outside his in-law’s house. S.I. Ashok Rang Shahi, on the basis of aforesaid written complaint, lodged FIR against the appellant as well as co-accused Mukesh for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with 34 of IPC.
In this case, there is no direct evidence regarding the involvement of the appellant in the crime. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in this case are (i) motive for the commission of offence, (ii) the last seen circumstance and (iii) the recovery of seized articles. Appellant has not given any explanation as to when, where and how, he parted the company of the deceased therefore learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding this fact as proved that deceased was subjected to homicidal death and was murdered by the appellant. Prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact that appellant having motive to commit murder of the deceased, took him on his motorcycle with the help of co-accused and was last seen together with the deceased alive and committed his murder by throwing him in the river. Hence, the circumstances proved are unerringly pointing towards guilt of the appellant and we found no fault in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of aforesaid discussions, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court record forthwith along with copy of this judgment.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI