Smt.Santoshidevi Banwarilal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 15205 Bom

                                                 IA 1002-21.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1002 OF 2021
                               IN
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2021

      Smt. Santoshidevi Banwarilal Saini             ]
      Age-39 years, R/o. Nisarg Vihar Society,       ]
      Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai               ]
      and also at                                    ]
      Post Chavaram, Tal.- Udaipurvati,              ]
      Dist.- Ziunzunu, Rajasthan                     ] .. Applicant

           Versus

      The State of Maharashtra                       ]
      Through Sr. PI of Kharghar Police Station,     ]
      Mumbai.                                        ] .. Respondent

      Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b Mr. Sameer P. Nangre for the
      Applicant.
      Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent-State.

                     CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                             SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

      Order reserved on         : 21st OCTOBER, 2021.
      Order pronounced on       : 22nd OCTOBER, 2021.


      ORDER

1. The applicant i.e. original accused is seeking her

release on bail under this application. During the pendency

of this application though the applicant has not sought

suspension of sentence imposed upon her by the learned

trial Court but in the appeal itself she has prayed so.

IA 1002-21.odt

2. As per prosecution story, on 04.03.2018 at about 5.00

p.m. the father of the deceased received phone call from the

applicant complaining that their daughter had not woken up.

When father of the deceased rushed to the house, he saw

his daughter lying in the same condition as he saw her when

he had left the house. Accordingly, on investigation it was

revealed that the applicant being mother of the deceased

had, in fact, strangulated her own daughter i.e. the

deceased to death by means of stole.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued

that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the applicant

without any eye witness and by relying heavily on Section

106 of the Indian Evidence Act as the deceased and the

applicant only were present in the house at the time of

incident. According to him, the deceased was in depression

and had also made an attempt to commit suicide in the past.

Shortly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

the applicant is involved in this crime falsely and on mere

suspicion.

4. On the contrary, learned APP for the State strongly

opposed the application on the ground that the learned trial

Court after considering the evidence on record has rightly

IA 1002-21.odt

convicted the applicant. Further, according to him there was

hand-writing of the deceased on record which established

the connection of the applicant with the crime.

5. Heard rival submissions and also perused the

documents on record. Admittedly, the applicant has been

convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to suffer R. I. for life and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-. In default, to suffer S.I. for one year. However,

on perusal of record, it appears that the father of the

deceased i.e. the husband of the present applicant had been

to the house when the alleged incident took place.

Moreover, brother of the deceased, namely, Bablu having

age of 12 years was also present in the house. As such, we

have to consider the applicability of Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act again. Further, it has come on record

that the deceased was under depression and she had

already made one attempt of committing suicide. It is

significant to note that the present applicant is mother of

the deceased and the prosecution case is that she was

suspecting her own daughter about having illicit relations.

However, it is also important to note that during Covid

IA 1002-21.odt

period, she was granted temporary bail. Further, the

applicant has also deposited the fine amount. Considering

these facts and specially keeping in mind that the applicant

is lady, she can be released on bail during the pendency of

the appeal. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant under the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2021 in Sessions Case No. 398 of 2019 is hereby suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(ii) The applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

(iii) The Interim Application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of accordingly.

6. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM

Digitally signed by ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM Date: 2021.10.22 15:07:44 +0530