Rinku Karan Raj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on application filed on 23/04/2019 under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of substantive jail sentence of appellant Rinku Karan Raj.

Appellant Rinku Karan Raj has been convicted by judgment dated 8/11/2017 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 42/2016. The trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 460, 394/397 and 302 of I.P.C. The

Court awarded ten years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 460 of I.P.C., seven years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence

under Section 394/397 of I.P.C. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that only upon the basis of recovery, the trial Court convicted the appellant. Ex. P-10 and P-16 are

the recovery memo. It is submitted by learned counsel that only upon the basis of recovery of some articles belonging to deceased, it cannot be

presumed that the appellant was involved in the murder of deceased. The counsel draws attention towards the law laid down in the case of Radha

Bhai Vs. Baburao Bala Bahirat and others A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1226S, heo Nath Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 53,5 Sanwat Khan and another Vs.

State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 54 a n d Nagappa Dondiba Kalal Vs. State of Karnataka A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1753.

On the other side, the State strongly opposed the application by filing the written objection.

It is submitted by the State that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. He was involved in the murder of deceased. It is also submitted that in

the case of Wasim Khan Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 400, the Apex Court held that ""recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property

while it would be presumptive evidence against an accused on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge of murder.

Perused the record.

It appears that the murder was committed during the period 8:30 P.M. of 23/02/2016 to 11 A.M. of 25/02/2016. As per memo Ex. P-10, accused

Rinku gave the information and also admitted that he committed the murder with the help of other accused. As per Ex. P-16, one mobile, two silver

bangles, one silver Angoothi, two earings, gold like matter and other ornaments were seized from the possession of the appellant. The aforesaid article

was kept below the tiles after tied in a polythene in Gram Hatupur.

The recovery was made on 3/03/2016, within a short time of crime, the aforesaid recovery has been made. The recovery has not been made from the

simple possession of the appellant but the appellant himself kept the aforesaid article in a polythene which was kept in Gram Hatupur below the tiles.

Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the appellant was bonafide receiver of aforesaid articles. In the case of Sanwat Khan (supra), it has

been said that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances. The detailed discussion of all

case law and the evidence is not required at the time of deciding the bail application.

Prima facie, it appears that the appellant was in possession of the looted articles and the recovery was made upon the information given by the

appellant himself. The articles were kept in a hidden place. Therefore, looking to the all circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to get the

suspension of remaining jail sentence.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.