Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-1653-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1653-2021
(ANAND JAIN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Anand Nayak, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.4168/2021, which is an application u/S.389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against
appellants Anand Jain and Rajkumar
T h i s appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
27/02/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chourai, District
Chhindwara in S.T.No.28/2020, whereby learned ADJ found the
appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the
IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each with default clause.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court
without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the
appellants for the aforesaid offences. There is no evidence on record to
show that the appellants harassed deceased Jyoti or demanded dowry,
due to which she committed suicide. Prosecution witnesses Naresh
Agrawal (PW/1), Manish Jain (PW/3), Anil Kumar Jain (PW/4),
Nemichand Jain (PW/8), Deviprasad Dehariya (PW/11) and Rambabu
Balmiki (PW/13) did not depose anything against the appellants. Other
prosecution witnesses namely M.L. Rahangdale (PW/5), P.L. Manothiya
(PW/7), Dheeraj Dubey (PW/9), Umesh Trivedi (PW/10) and Dr. A.K.
Sen (PW/14) are the formal witnesses regarding the fact that deceased
committed suicide. Only Mahesh Agrawal (PW/2) in his examination-in-
chief deposed that appellants demanded motorcycle and harassed the
deceased, but in this regard there are omissions in his statement, which
became afterthought. Only on the basis that deceased committed suicide
within one year of her marriage it cannot be said that appellants harassed
the deceased, due to which she committed suicide. The appellants are in
custody since the date of judgment i.e. 27/02/2021, hence prayed for
suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail since
the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.08.12 17:38:36 IST
2 CRA-1653-2021
a n d submitted that the guilt of the appellants was proved beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellants.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention
of learned counsel for the appellants and the strength of evidence
collected by prosecution against the appellants, the application is
allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone
passed against the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency
of this appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2021 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the
pendency of this appeal.
The appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be
listed for final hearing in due course.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.08.12 17:38:36 IST
