Jitendra @ Jitu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2100 MP

  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                       Criminal Appeal No.4972/2019
                      (Jitendra @ Jitu Vs. State of M. P.)
                                     -1-

Indore, dated 03/06/2021

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Ms. Archana Kher, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

respondent / State.

Heard on IA.No.1056/2021, filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant

- Jitendra @ Jitu who has been convicted for offence punishable under

Section 498-A and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 02 years RI

and Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively,

with default stipulation.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the

present case, two dying declarations of the deceased have been

recorded. First dying declaration recorded by Naib Tehslidar - D.D.Patil

(PW-6) (Ex.-P/7) and second dying declaration recorded by Constable

Santosh Sonvane (PW-5) (Ex.-P/3) are having many contradictions and

do not inspire confidence. It is submitted that the FIR (Ex.-P/16) was

lodged by Jayraj Solanki (PW-11), the Investigating Officer himself, on

the basis of the dying declaration recorded by Naib Tehsildar - D.D.Patil

(PW-6).

In the dying declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar, the

deceased alleged that the accused appellant, who is her husband, had

an altercation with her and in that state of anger she herself poured HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Criminal Appeal No.4972/2019 (Jitendra @ Jitu Vs. State of M. P.)

kerosene oil on her body and then alleged that the appellant husband lit

the fire. In the dying declaration recorded by Constable Santosh

Sonvane (PW-5) (Ex.-P/3) she has alleged that her husband had a

quarrel with her, abused her and then poured kerosene on her body and

lit fire.

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the dying

declaration was recorded by Constable in Marathi has interpolations. In

regard to the certificate given by Doctor, originally 08/04/2016 was

written and after overwriting, eight was made nine i.e. 09/04/2016. If the

dying declaration (Ex.-P/3) has been recorded under the direction of the

SHO as stated by PW-5 Constable Santosh Sonvane on 09/04/2016,

there was no reason why that version could not have been given in the

FIR (Ex.-P/16) recorded on 11/04/2016. It is therefore, submitted that it is

a clear case of suicidal death and that conviction of the appellant for

offence under Section 302 of the IPC has wrongly been recorded. The

appellant was on bail pending trial after he had served sentence of 756

days i.e. nearly two years and has further undergone sentence of two

more years after the impugned judgment of conviction passed on

31/05/2019. Thus, he has already suffered jail incarceration of four

years. The hearing of this appeal would likely to take time. Therefore, the

remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.

The application is opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the respondent/State.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Criminal Appeal No.4972/2019 (Jitendra @ Jitu Vs. State of M. P.)

Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the material available on record and the facts and circumstances

of the case and that the hearing of the appeal is likely to take time,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in the

totality of the circumstances of the case, we are persuaded to allow

IA.No.1056/2021 and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant .

Accordingly, IA.No.1056/2021 is allowed. It is directed that the

remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant -

Jitendra @ Jitu shall remain suspended and he shall be enlarged on

bail upon his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the

trial Court.

The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked by the jail

doctor to ensure that they are not suffering from the Coronavirus

(COVID-19) and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital

designated by the State for treatment. If not, he shall be transported to

their place of residence by the jail authorities.

Certified copy as per rules.

              (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                               (SUJOY PAUL)
                CHIEF JUSTICE                                   JUDGE
Tej

Digitally signed by
TEJPRAKASH VYAS
Date: 2021.06.03
15:17:09 +05'30'