Gopinath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4734 MP

                                   1                              CRA-2193-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-2193-2019
               (GOPINATH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

19
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant No.1.
      Shri Sourabh Shukla, P.L. for the respondent/State.

Record of the Court below has been received.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A. No. 16399/2019, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1. The first application bearing I.A. No. 4609/2019 was dismissed as not pressed on behalf of the appellant No.1-Gopinath.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,1973 by the appellant No.1 against judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by learned S es s io ns Judge, Burhanpur, Distt.-Burhanpur (M.P.) in S.T. No. 100081/2016. Appellant No1. stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1

year with a fine of Rs. 100/-, Section 506-II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 100/- & Section 326 of IPC and has been sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation in each.

Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Kavita lodged an FIR at Police Station-Khaknaar that she is wife of co-accused Mathura Prasad and their marriage was solemnized on 27.05.2013. After that appellant and co- accused started harassing complainant regarding demand of dowry. On 06.03.2015, all the accused persons committed marpeet with the complainant and present appellant poured kerosene oil on her and one of them has set fire on her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by the complainant. Thereafter, she was admitted at hospital and Tehsildar recorded dying 2 CRA-2193-2019 declaration of the complainant and police has arrested the appellant and co- accused persons. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1 is in jail since 26.02.2019 and during trial he remained in jail from 19.06.2015 to 30.10.2015. He further submits that the complainant was examined by Dr. Ashish Mandloi (PW-7), who deposed that injury of the complainant is

'superficial to deep burn' i.e. 90% but he did not give any opinion about the nature of the injury. Learned Trial Court found that complainant suffered to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain and was unable to follow her ordinary pursuits. So, according to learned trial Court, appellant No.1 caused grievous injury to the complainant. But complainant did not depose any fact in this regard that she remained in pain for 20 days and was unable to do any work. There are material contradiction and omissions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. Dr. Ashish Mandloi (PW-7) also deposed before the trial Court that complainant told him that she was burnt due to fall of lamp on her at home. Dr. Smt. Sunita Meshram (PW-14) also examined the complainant and she also deposed that the complainant suffered accidental burn. Keshya Solanki-Nayab Tehsildar (PW-9) deposed before the trial Court that he has recorded the statement of complainant in which she deposed that she burnt due to fall of lamp upon her at home. So, there is material contradiction on this point that appellant-accused poured Kerosene Oil on her. The execution of jail sentence of other co-accused have already been suspended by this Court and have been released on bail on dated 08.05.2019. There are fair chances to succeed in the case. Final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant No.1 may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.

Learned PL for the respondent/State has opposed the application. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, looking to the circumstances of the case, statements of PWs 7 & 14 and the 3 CRA-2193-2019 facts that the statement of Keshya Solanki-Nayab Tehsildar (PW-9) were recorded before the trial Court where he deposed that that he has recorded the dying declaration of the complainant in which she deposed that she burnt due to fall of lamp upon her at home, doctors (PW-7 & PW-14) also did not opine the injuries of the complainant to be grievous, appellant is in jail since 26.02.2019 and during trial he remained in jail from 19.06.2015 to 30.10.2015, this appeal is of the year 2019 and will take time for its final disposal, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in view of this Court, the appellant No.1 is entitled to get suspension of sentence. Hence this application is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already

deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant No.1- Gopinath shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the same like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 29.10.2021 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of the appeal.

List this matter for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2021.08.27 17:54:54 +05'30'