Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 194
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
Vishal Mishra, J.
Umed Singh @ Umesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MCRC-2603-2020
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Shri Prakhar Dhegula, Learned Counsel, for the Applicant; Shri Aditya Singh Ghuraiya, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State
The sufficiency of evidence and the establishment of a complete chain of events are crucial in determining guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Circumstantial Evidence - The court allowed the bail application based on the lack of evidence establishing the complete chain of events and the applicant's potential innocence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C after being arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including statements and mobile tower location data.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allowed the bail application, noting the lack of material to implicate the applicant for the offence.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence to establish the applicant's guilt, particularly in light of the circumstantial nature of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the broken chain of events and the lack of justifiable reasons provided by the state counsel and complainant, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court directed the release of the applicant on bail upon compliance with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on I.A.No. 823/2020, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C for assisting for Public Prosecutor.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed.
3. Shri Sarvesh Sharma, learned counsel is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing of the matter.
4. Case dairy is perused.
5. This is first bail application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicants for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 22.09.2019 by Police Station Tyonda District Vidisha in connection with Crime No.218/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 302 and 34 of IPC.
6. It is alleged that it is the case of circumstantial evidence and the applicant has been roped in the case only on the basis of statement given by one Khoob Singh wherein, he has specifically given name of the applicant as last seen with the deceased. It is further submitted that during the investigation the police authorities have collected the evidence regarding location of mobile tower and in this regard a CDR report has been submitted. He has drawn attention of this Court to CDR report wherein, time is being mentioned. He has further drawn attention of this Court to medical report of the deceased and has argued that postmortem of the deceased was conducted at about 3:30 PM on 04.09.2019 and doctor has given his opinion that time of death may be 7-10 hours prior to postmortem examination. It is further argued that if medical report is taken into consideration then the incident might have taken place sometime around 6-7 AM on 04.09.2019. He has further drawn attention of this Court to CDR report and has argued that location of the present applicant on 04.09.2019 at morning hours was at village Hinotiya, Begumganj. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the statement of wife of the deceased, wherein she had categorically stated that her neighbor- Umesh left with deceased-Govind at Bagrod Chouraha on 03.09.2019. Thereafter, there is huge gap between the aforesaid telephone conversation at about 10:00 PM on 03.09.2019 and the death had taken place in the morning on 04.09.2019 as per the medical report. Thus, he submits that the entire chain is broken and prosecution is required to establish the complete chain. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant is responsible for committing the offence of murder. He is in custody since 22.09.2019. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Upon these grounds, he prays for bail.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as complainant have opposed the bail application and they have drawn attention of this Court to the statement of Smt. Manwari Bai wherein, she has categorically stated the fact that present applicant was seen with the deceased. It is further submitted that location of mobile tower of the present applicant as well as deceased was also compared and it was found the same. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to hold the applicant guilty for committing the offence. He prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the case dairy.
9. Specific query was made to State counsel regarding the statement of wife of deceased demonstrating the fact that after conversation between Umesh and wife of the deceased, Umesh has left the deceased at Bagrod Chouraha on 03.09.2019 and thereafter location of mobile tower was found in Bagumganj on 04.09.2019 then, death has taken place between at around 6 or 7 AM on 04.09.2019 as per the postmortem report. What material is shown to implicate the present applicant for committing the offence.
10. Counsel for the State as well as complainant could not submit justifiable reason for the same.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
