Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Jyoti Kirnapure vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 CRA-11113-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-11113-2019
(KU. JYOTI KIRNAPURE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Malviya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No. 3885/2021, which is second application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
The first application of appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on
14.02.2020.
Appellant has been convicted under Section under Sections 302/34 and
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and
Rs. 5,000/- respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case there
is no direct evidence and on the basis of circumstantial evidence the appellant
has been made accused. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove
the case against the present appellant as no evidence has been produced by
the prosecution to establish the relation between the appellant and co-accused
Virendra Murkute. He further submits that the conviction of the present
appellant is based upon the fact that her sandel was seized from the spot from
where the body of the deceased was found. He submits that even the said
seizure is not enough to convict the present appellant because the prosecution
has not collected any scientific material evidence to establish the guilt of the
appellant. He has further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to
prove that the sandel seized from the spot was of the present appellant. Under
such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of
circumstances so far as present appellant is concerned. Therefore, remaining
Signature Not Verified
SAN
jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and she may be enlarged on bail.
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2021.06.21 19:10:51 IST
2 CRA-11113-2019
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the bail
application and supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.
He has submitted that considering the period of custody of appellant, at this
stage, she is not entitled to be released on bail and the application may be
rejected.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both
the parties, the seizure witnesses have been declared hostile and that the
prosecution has failed to collect any scientific material evidence, IA No.
3885/2021 is allowed. It is directed that remaining jail sentence of appellant
shall remain suspended and she shall be released on bail on her furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned
for her appearance before the registry of this Court on 13.12.2021 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard.
The jail authority is also directed to ensure that before her release, the
appellant is examined by the jail doctor to ascertain that she 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 she shall be released.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2021.06.21 19:10:51 IST
