Sonu @ Sunil


State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013

Provisions Involved

Section : 34, 302, 394, 460 of IPC, 1860; Section 11 and 13 of M.P Dakaiti Avam Vyapharam Adhiniyam, 1981; Section 114 of Evidence Act.


The appellant were found guilty of the murder, by inflicting injuries with knife and loot. The trial court was in doubt as the blood stained maxi was recovered by the deceased wife only occasionally visit him and she was alive and the witness in the case. In short the contention is that the case is one where the appellant is convicted without any evidence and injustice maybe set right. Whereas 11 circumstances were enlisted by High Court as the looted goods/articles were recovered from appellant.



The precedents that were put before the Court for deciding the case are:

Ashish Jain v. Makran Singh & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 770:- Identification was not done with the due procedure; Sunderlal alias Sundera v. State of M.P. (AIR1954 SC 28):- Bothe the accused and deceased were seen together after the murder with the articles belonging to the deceased. Conviction under section 302 of IPC, based on circumstances was correct; Sanwant Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54:- The court found that there was no direct evidence. There were certain circumstances which were rejected by the Session Judge and the solitary circumstances was the recovery of 2 articles; Baju v. State of M.P. AIR 1978 SC 522: For the evidence about its identification, the manner in which it was dealt with by the appellant the place and the circumstances of its recovery , the length of intervening period, the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his passion are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision; Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2001 SC 2342):- This ia a case where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and same transaction; Girija Shankar v. State of UP (2004 (3) SCC 793):- For bringing the charge of the common intention the prosecution has to establish by evidence.


The appellant were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgement in so far as it relates to the appellant will stand acquitted. The appellant bail shall be discharged he will be set at liberty if his custody is not required in connection with any other cases.