Devidas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 104 MP

Cr.A. No.8784/2019                                                          1
              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

 Devidas S/o Manka Magar and others vs. State of M.P.
Indore : 23/02/2021 :-
     Shri     Vivek         Singh,       learned       counsel      for      the
appellant/Tulsabai.
     Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.

Submissions were made on IA No.7518/2021.

This is an application for suspension of sentence to appellant No.3- Tulsabai, who has been convicted as under :-

   Section          Act         Imprisonment         Fine, if    Imprisonment
                                                    deposited     in lieu of fine
  302/120-B         IPC          R.I. for life      Rs.1,000/-     4 month
                                                                 additional R.I.
     323            IPC         6 months R.I.        Rs.500/-      3 months
                                                                 additional R.I.

The prosecution story is that the complainant and his wife deceased/Sarlabai had entered into marriage alliance against the wishes of family of deceased. Appellant is mother of the deceased. Appellant and other co-accused were against such alliance. On 05/04/2018, when the deceased had come to Village-Pansemal from Mumbai, the appellant alongwith her husband and son (co-accused) hatched conspiracy purusant to which the husband and son of the appellant came to the house of the deceased and told her that her mother (the present appellant) is serious and she wants to meet her. The deceased (Sarlabai) and her husband (Pankaj-PW/2) thereafter accompanied the co-accused in a vehicle and as the deceased entered into her house, she was attacked by the appellant. Husband - Pankaj (PW/2) who is complainant in this case also

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

was assaulted by the appellant with a Mogari. The deceased, fearing for her life rushed-out but was caught hold by brother and father of the deceased; namely Hiralal and Devidas respectively.

When the complainant tried to save his wife, Hiralal held him from behind and Devidas chased Sarla. The complainant again tried to save his wife but was assaulted by the appellant and in the meanwhile Devidas gave blows on Sarla with a sharp object weapon (Koyta). In such injuries Sarla succumbed on the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there are exaggerations in the statement of Pankaj (PW/2), who has stated that appellant had raised many blows on him with Mogari whereas there are only two injuries on his person. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court in para 69 of the judgment. He submitted that appellant is in jail since last three years and all the injuries on the deceased have been caused by sharp object for which the appellant is not responsible and that there is no evidence to construe conspiracy hatched by the appellant.

Learned Government Advocate for State was also heard, who has vehemently opposes the application, pointing-out that it is a case of honour killing and there is a clear evidence of hatching of conspiracy by the appellant and other co-accused persons.

Submissions were considered and material available on record was perused.

From the evidence of Pankaj (PW/2), it appears that he and his wife (the deceased/Sarla) were induced to accompany

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

the co-accused persons on the pretext that appellant is on death bed and is wanting to see her daughter (the deceased). This witness further has stated as to the manner in which he and his wife were attacked by Mogari by the appellant, when they entered the house. Mogari has been seized vide Ex.P/23 from the appellant on the basis of her memorandum Ex.P/2.

The contradictions pointed-out by the learned counsel for the appellant are of very trivial character. The whole sequel of events prima facie point at conspiracy aimed at eliminating Sarla by the appellant and her husband and son. Prima facie it does appear to be a case of honour killing and committal of such offence by very own parents and brother of the deceased takes the offence into another elevated level of heinousness.

After due consideration and considering the rival submissions made by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that appellant is not entitled to be granted benefit of suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly, IA No.7518/2021 stands dismissed.

              (Sujoy Paul)                        (Shailendra Shukla)
                 Judge                                   Judge
Aiyer*

          Digitally signed by
          Jagdishan Aiyer
          Date: 2021.02.24
          18:45:13 +05'30'