Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puneet Varman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 CRA-1317-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1317-2021
(PUNEET VARMAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Somit Raizada, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anshuman Swami, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal involves arguable points, therefore, admitted for final
hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.3236/2021 an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant.
Vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed in Sessions Trial
No.174/2016, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years, RI for three years with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, RI for five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and RI for one year
with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail
during the trial and even after conviction it can be easily seen from the finding
given by the Court below that there was no ingredient of cruelty and demand
of dowry soon before the incident was found. He relied upon the finding
given by the trial Court as has been observed in paragraph 28 of the judgment
in which it is mentioned that the father of the deceased Lalji Raikwar (PW2) in
his statement has informed that before four days of the date of incident,
deceased had talked with him but she had not said anything against nor
reported anything about cruelty or demand of dowry by the present appellant.
He submits that though in the postmortem report it has come that in viscera
some poisonous substance was found, but there is no material and evidence
Signature Not Verified
SAN
produced by the prosecution indicating that cause of death is due to poison
Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Date: 2021.06.15 11:21:49 IST
2 CRA-1317-2021
and that was given to the deceased by the present appellant.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer made
b y learned counsel for the appellant and has drawn attention of this Court
towards the finding given in paragraph 15 of the judgment in which the trial
Court has given specific opinion that deceased died due to consumption of
poisonous substance.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
sentence awarded to the appellant can be suspended and he can be enlarged
on bail. Accordingly I.A. No.6822/2021 is allowed.
It is directed that on appellant's depositing the entire fine amount, if not
already deposited, as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 20.12.2021 and on all such subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, if not
required to be detained in any other case.
T h e jail authority is also directed to ensure that the appellant is
examined by the jail doctor to ascertain that he is not afflicted with the
COVID-19 virus. If the doctor suspects otherwise, the appellant shall be
referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the
protocol laid down by the State. In the event the jail doctor is of the opinion
that the appellant can be released, then he shall be released.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Sudesh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Date: 2021.06.15 11:21:49 IST
