Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRA No.5007/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
CRA No.5007/2020
(Sandeep and others V/s. The state of M.P.)
Date: 04.05.2021:
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6930/2021
an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of a custodial sentence of appellant
No.2 - Shantilal Patidar.
The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 11.09.2020 passed by Additional Session judge,
Badnawar, District Ujjain whereby the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 306
of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years and 5 years R.I. with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
At present, appellant No.2 Shantilal Patidar has filed this
application for suspension of her bail sentence and grant of bail.
As per the prosecution story, the marriage of the deceased
Sheela held on 21.02.2015 with Sandeep i.e. appellant No.1 under
Hindu customs and rituals. Appellant No.2 is father-in-law and
appellant No.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. As per the
allegation, the deceased Sheela was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by these appellants in connection with the demand of
dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- for opening a mobile shop. She
committed suicide by hanging herself on 14.11.2018 leaving the
suicide note in which she held responsible the appellants for her
untimely death. After completion of the investigation, Final
- : 2 :-
CRA No.5007/2020
Report ( Chalan) was been filed for the offence punishable under
Section 304-B and 306 of I.P.C.
The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses
but the appellants have not examined any witness in their defence.
PW-1 to PW-4 i.e. parents, brother and sister of the deceased did
not support the case of the prosecution. Only on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
convicted the appellants as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when all the
witnesses have categorically denied the charges of cruelty against
the appellants and stated that they used to keep the deceased
happy after the marriage and there was no cruelty or harassment
meted out with her for the demand of dowry, therefore, the
learned court below have committed error in law as well as on
facts by convicting the appellant No.2, merely on the basis of a
presumption under Section 304-B read with 113 of Indian
Evidence Act. The learned trial court has failed to examine that
there was no cruelty soon before the death. So far the suicide note
is concerned, only an omnibus allegation is there about the
demand of dowry. She was only unhappy with the husband, who
used to obey his parents and she was feeling that she had become
a maid in the house. Hence, the sentence of the appellant No.2 be
suspended.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer of the appellant
No.2 by submitting that deceased Sheela died unnatural death
within seven years of marriage, therefore, the presumption of
dowry death is there u/s. 304-B of I.P.C. Although PW-1 to PW-4
i.e. parents, brother and sister have turned hostile but on the basis
of circumstantial evidence, appellant No.2 has rightly been
convicted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
- : 3 :-
CRA No.5007/2020
records.
From a perusal of the suicide note, it is clear that the
deceased was not happy with her husband, who was obedient to
his father and mother. She was carrying an impression that she
had the status of a maid in the house and she cannot live without
respect. The allegation of dowry is a very general allegation and
the parents, sister and brother of the deceased are not supporting
the case of prosecution about cruelty, harassment and demand of
dowry.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6930/2021, is allowed and it is
directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.2 -
Shantilal Patidar in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance
before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence
imposed against the appellant No.2 shall remain suspended, till
the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant No.2 after being enlarged from custody, shall
mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 17.01.2022
and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.05.05 10:52:37 +05'30'
