[email protected] Pyarelal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3798 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Heard through video conferencing.

Cr.A No.2230/2021 (Sunil @ Pyarelal & ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) Jabalpur, dated : 31.07.2021 Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta, counsel for the appellants/applicants. Ms.Sonali Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on I.A.No.11719/2021 which is the first application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence of the appellants No.1-Sunil @ Pyarelal, Appellant No.2-Bablu @ Tulsiram and appellant No.3-Shyam Bai.

2. The applicants have been convicted under Section 306/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo 05 years RI each with fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo 30 days SI.

3. The applicants are husband, brother-in-law (nsoj) and mother-in- law (lkl) of the deceased. It is argued by their counsel that the death has taken place after about 15 years of marriage. No complaint of any type has every been made during the life time of the deceased. The death was first noticed by the husband and he himself intimated the police and his in-laws were present during the inquest proceedings but they did not make any complaint at that time. Brother of the deceased and her husband were working together at the same place and if there would have been any discord between the husband and wife it would not have been happened. Appellants No.2 and 3 were living separately since years and they had nothing to do with the deceased and her

husband. This fact has been admitted by the father of the deceased Khemchand PW-1 and the trial Court itself noted this fact in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. The allegation made by the parents and relatives of the deceased are that 2-3 months prior to the incident there was some scuffle between the husband and wife but there is no proximity between such type of domestic incident and suicide committed by the deceased. It is further contended that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested either they are blood relatives or neighbours of the deceased. Narayan-PW-5 and Kundanlal Sahu-PW-6 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate all these facts. It has wrongly considered Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. No presumption was available in favour of the prosecution as the death occurred after about 15 years of marriage.

4. It is further contended that applicants are in jail since 15.03.2021 and the appeal would take a long time for its disposal. They are the permanent residents of District Bhopal, there is no possibility of their absconding. They are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

5. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh (2007) 11 SCC 205, Jagdishraj Khatta vs. State of H.P. (2019) 9 SCC 248, Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer. She referred to the statement of father of the deceased as well as other witnesses and has supported the conviction of the applicants.

7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

8. After going through the statement of the father of the deceased- Khemchand PW-1, Brother-Rakesh PW-2, Mother-Adhar Bai PW-9 Ganesh Ram PW-10 and other witnesses who are not related directly to the incident or the allegations made against the applicants, I find it a fit case for suspension of sentence. Therefore, without discussing the merits of the case in detail or making any comment on the merits, I.A.No.11719/2021 is allowed.

9. It is directed that on deposit of entire fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with separate surety bond each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court on 26.10.2021 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in that regard, the appellants/applicants namely Sunil @ Pyarelal, Bablu @ Tulsiram and Shyam Bai be released on bail and their substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.

10. In the event of non-appearance of the appellants/applicants, the trial Court shall be at liberty to take coercive action against them to secure their presence under the intimation of this Court.

11. Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE

anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2021.07.31 17:07:26 +05'30'