Shahid Ali vs State of C.G.

Heard. Admit.

Heard on following interim applications :--

(1) I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 272/2012,

(2) I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 278/2012, and

(3) I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 279/2012.

These are the 3 applications filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

The appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 364/149, 302/149, 201 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (in two counts) and R.I. for 2 years with fine sentences.

Dr. Avinash Ramteke was missing since 10-05-2010. A missing report was lodged by his father D.K. Ramteke. On 21-05-2010, D.K. Ramteke received a suspicious letter and mobile set of Dr. Avinash Ramteke. It was handed over to the police. Thereafter, offence u/s 365 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, the appellants were taken into custody on 02-06-2010 and 12-06-2010 and their memorandum statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded and then some skeleton were seized on their instance from the forest area. A sock alleging to be of the deceased was also seized at the instance of one of the appellants. Father of the deceased identified the sock to be that of the deceased. Specimen hand writing was taken and the letter was sent for expert opinion, but no report could be filed. The learned Sessions Judge held that the skeleton seized at the instance of the appellants was that of the deceased and the appellants were liable for punishment as aforementioned. The prosecution came with the case that the deceased was kidnapped by the appellants while he was getting down from a bus and was taken in a bolero jeep and was confined in the possession of the appellants, and thereafter, murder was committed. P.W.-6 (Vinod Kumar Rajput) is the conductor of the bus, P.W.-12 (Durga Prasad) is Driver of the bus and P.W.-2 (Komal Singh Thakur) is an alleged co-passenger. But they did not prove that the deceased was kidnapped by the appellants in the above manner.

Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that there is no eye witness to the incident; the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence; the circumstances put forth by the prosecution are not fully established; the circumstances are not of conclusive nature and tendency; the circumstances are capable of being explained. Therefore, the conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and the same can not be sustained.

On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments.

We have gone through the evidence of above witnesses and have also gone through the record as also the impugned judgment.

Except memorandum statements of the appellants recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. there does not appear to be any other incriminating evidence in this matter.

Learned Counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that it was not established that skeleton recovered by the police was that of the deceased. They have also argued that sock is a common article and in absence of any specific reason to identify it to be that of the deceased, the same would not be incriminating against the appellants.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that present are the fit cases, in which, the substantive jail sentences imposed against the appellants should be suspended and they should be released on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 272/2002, I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 278/2012 and I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in Cr. Appeal No. 279/2012 are allowed and the substantive jail sentences imposed against the appellants are suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15th of October 2012. Thereafter, the appellants shall not be required to appear either before the Registry or any other Court unless so directed in that behalf. Certified copy as per rules.