Madhya Pradesh High Court
Biharilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Criminal Appeal No.8411/2018 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Criminal Appeal No.8411/2018
Biharilal & Five Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 28.06.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Avinash Khare, learned counsel for appellant No.2 -
Narmada Prasad and appellant No.5 - Tejubai.
Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for appellant No.6 -
Balram.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State.
The appellants aforesaid have been convicted vide
judgment and conviction dated 15.10.2018 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District - Rajgarh passed in
Sessions Trial No.298/2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147 of the Indian Penal and sentenced to undergo 1 year's
rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants have also been
convicted under Section 302 r/w section 149 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each along with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and with default clause to further undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment each.
I.A. No.14843/2021, an application filed by Teju Bai is
taken up.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although her
previous application I.A. No.3980/2021 was decided recently and
she was given benefit of suspension for two months' considering
the fact that she has minor children and agricultural season is
coming, her remaining jail sentence may be suspended. The prayer
is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
We have heard the parties on this aspect.
The background facts including the fact relating to
inconvenience because of minor children etc. was advanced and
taken care of by the Bench in the previous order dated 23.04.2021.
This appellant must have taken all possible grounds in favour of
her application for suspension of sentence. Yet the Division Bench
thought it proper to grant temporary bail for a period of two
months. This is a recent order passed on 23.04.2021. There is no
such change in circumstance which permits the Court to take a
different view.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14843/2021 is dismissed.
I.A. No.11521/2021 filed by Narmada Prasad and I.A.
No.15930/2021 filed by Balram are also taken up.
Indisputably, the application of suspension of sentence of
Narmada Prasad is the first application, whereas application of
Balram was previosuly decided on merits by order dated
04.12.2020.
Shri Tarun Kushwah submits that in para - 4 of order dated
04.12.2020, it is erroneously mentioned that first application of
Balram was dismissed on merits on 02.08.2019. It is seen that on
02.08.2019, I.A. No.4514/2019 was decided which was filed by
appellant - Biharilal and not by Balram. However, a careful
reading of entire order shows that two applications of Teju Bai and
Balram were considered on merits on 04.12.2020 and both the
applications were dismissed.
Shri Khare and Shri Kushwah have taken pains to contend
that there is variation in Dehatinalishi and dying declaration
recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The tehreek on the strength
of which dying declaration was recorded was not filed. The doctor,
who allegedly gave certificate of fitness did not enter the witness
box and hence, the story of prosecution is not trustworthy. In
addition, it is submitted that in dying declaration recorded by the
Executive Magistrate, it is clearly mentioned that the husband and
mother-in-law of the deceased were basically responsible in putting
her ablazed. Shri Khare in support of his contention placed reliance
on AIR 2021 SC 1605 (Naresh Kumar v/s Kalawati & Others).
The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State.
A microscopic reading of both the dying declarations
namely Dehatinalishi and one which was recorded by the
Executive Magistrate show that the role attributed on Narmada
Prasad is similar to the role allegedly played by Balram. This Court
has already rejected the application of Balram on merits on
23.04.2021. Thus, by applying principle of parity, we are inclined
to dismiss these applications also because present appellants
Narmada Prasad and Balram are prima facie similarly situated.
Resultantly, these I.As. are also dismissed.
List the appeal in due course.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.06.28 16:59:26 +05'30'
