Krishnapal @ Kanha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Gajendra Singh, J

This criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 16.03.2026 in SCATR No.6/2026 by the 5t h Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain whereby the application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for bail on behalf of appellant- Krishnapal@ Kanha apprehended on 11.10.2025 in connection with crime No.495/2025 registered at police station-Nanakheda, District- Ujjain (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 103(1) read with section 3(5), 311 read with section 3(5), 70(1) read with section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been rejected.

The appellant has been apprehended for committing gangrape, murder and robbery with a woman aged 70 years belonging to scheduled cast community on 10.10.2025 in the field situated within the jurisdiction of P.S.- Nanakheda, District- Ujjain when the deceased was gone to the field for collecting the soyabean. Appellant does not belongs to SC/ST community.

Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that offence is heinous in nature.

Challenging the order of the trial court this criminal appeal has been preferred on the ground that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no allegation against the present appellant that he committed the rape. The material witnesses have been examined before the trial court admitted that prior to identification of the article, the police had already shown the ornaments to the witnesses. There is serious non-compliance of sections 105 and 185 of the BNSS, 2023. Those provisions are mandatory in nature and non-compliance is always fatal for the prosecution. The only evidence against the appellant is recovery and memorandum which is hit by non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. Accordingly, no legal evidence is available against the appellant to connect with the offence. Appellant is a permanent resident of Ujjain (MP). He has relied upon Shadab Vs. State of U.P. 2026 AHC 260.

Heard.

Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the Objector opposed the criminal appeal.

Perused the case diary.

As per DNA finger printing report prepared by Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Bhopal, the DNA profile detected on vaginal slide, petticoat matches with the DNA profile of co-accused Deepak@ Mangal and DNA profile detected on Daratha (Spare) recovered from the co-accused also matches with the DNA profile found on blouse of the deceased as well as the DNA profile detected on Shirt and pant of co-accused Deepak also matches with the DNA profile found on the blouse of the deceased similarly. DNA profile found on the wooden log recovered from the present appellant/accused also matches with the DNA profile detected on the blouse of the deceased and DNA profile found on the Shirt of the appellant/accused matches with the DNA profile found on the blouse of the deceased. The silver ring of the deceased was recovered at 7:45 p.m. on 11.10.2025 from the possession of the present appellant. The proceedings of the seizure was recorded on mobile app e-Sakshya, version 4.2.1. Accordingly, trial court did not commit any error in not granting the benefit of bail to the appellant and appellant does not succeed by referring Shadab (Supra) and the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed at present.