Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2021
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.2059/2019
Munni Bai Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior dated 17.12.2021
Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri N.K.Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:
IA.No.17283/2020, repeat application u/Sec. 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant
- Munni Bai, is taken up and considered.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 23 rd January,
2019 passed in S.T.No.100114/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Seonda Distt. Datia, whereby appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :-
Sections (IPC) Imprisonment Fine
364/120-B Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation
201 Five years RI Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that earlier no
application has been decided on merits. It is further submitted that
present case is of circumstantial evidence and only on the basis of last
seen evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-6), Narayani Bai (PW-7) and
Rambabu (PW-8) appellant has been implicated in the case. Out of the
aforesaid witnesses, Narayani Bai (PW-7) and Rambabu (PW-8) have
not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.
Even otherwise, they admitted in their statements that their source of
information is Vijay Singh. Vijay Singh (PW-6) has though stated that
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.2059/2019
he has last seen the deceased in the company of appellant along with
other accused, but he has stated that he was informed about the
aforesaid facts by Ramesh Jatav, who was not examined by the
prosecution. However, he was examined by the defence as DW-2 and
he has specifically stated that on 2.8.2010 he did not see Lakhan and
Narayani Bai accompanying accused Mevaram, Ramvir and Kallu.
Neither he saw aforesaid persons nor 7-8 others sitting in bolero
vehicle. He even did not see any bolero vehicle on the spot. He further
stated that he did not tell aforesaid facts to Vijay Singh (PW-6) and
Vijay Singh had told him that he will give Rs.20,000-25,000/- to him if
he will tell police personnel that he saw Lakhan and Narayani Bai
going along with accused Mevaram, Ramvir and Kallu.
Beside that, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
on the basis of memorandum of appellant, one pair of white colour
slippers have been seized, but witnesses of seizure (Ex.P/18), namely
Arvind (PW-10) and Kamta Prasad Sharma (PW-3), have not supported
the prosecution on this point that on the behest of appellant Munnibai,
aforesaid article was seized. It is further submitted that this Court vide
order dated 8.12.2021 has granted suspension of sentence to co-
accused Kallu Bhadoriya in connected Criminal Appeal No.2057/2019.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed
for its rejection.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.2059/2019
commenting anything on the merits of the case, IA.No.17283/2020 is
allowed and it is directed that jail sentence of appellant will remain
under suspension subject to verification that the amount of fine has
been deposited, on appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court for his appearance
before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 28th March, 2022 and
thereafter on such further dates as may be fixed by the office of this
Court in this regard till disposal of the appeal.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rohit Arya) (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
Judge Judge
ms/-
MADHU
SOODAN
PRASAD
2021.12.20
17:40:42 +05'00'
