Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajab Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2021
Author: Rohit Arya
01
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.1725/2021
(Ajab Singh Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated: 10.11.2021
Shri H.K.Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajiv Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.22885/2021.
This is an application seeking suspension of sentence filed on
behalf of appellant- Ajab Singh.
Appellant Ajab Singh stands convicted for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.3,000/- vide judgment dated 29.1.2020 passed in
S.T.No.23/2017 by the Court below.
The appellant is in custody since 29th January, 2020.
As per prosecution story, Merg information was received on
14.4.2016 and registered as Merg No.14/2016 under Section 174 of
Cr.P.C. During enquiry, statements of the witnesses were recorded
and it came out that in the intervening night of 13 th and 14th of
April, 2016 appellant- Ajab Singh has administered pesticide
forcibly to Sunitabai while she was sleeping in the room of
adjoining hutment and thereafter she died. Based on Merg enquiry
and FSL report, crime has been registered as Crime No.238/2016
under Section 302 of IPC against appellant Ajab Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed hard on the
alleged statement of deceased Sunita Bai allegedly recorded on
13.4.2016 and is marked as Ex.D/3, wherein it is alleged to have
been stated by deceased Sunitabai that while she was in the room
and suffering from high fiver, instead of taking medicine, she by
default had consumed another bottle which contained pesticide
liquid and that led to her death. That apart, learned counsel also
submits that though the incident is of 13/14th April, 2016, but FIR
has been registered after six months on 8.10.2016, and therefore,
there is an inordinate delay also in lodging of the FIR. The
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State while
resisting the application has referred to paragraphs 7, 46, 47 and 48
to contend that the Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with the
aforesaid alleged statement of deceased Sunita and found it to be
suspicious in nature. That apart, there is no evidence that alleged
thumb impression of Sunita has been either verified or expert's
opinion is obtained thereupon to ascertain its authenticity. Beside,
though deceased Sunita is alleged to have stated the occurrence of
the incident in the house, whereas as per the Naksha Mauka, Ex.P/1
and Ex.P/4, prepared by Patwari and the investigating officer, the
incident is said to be in the adjoining Kheda annexe of hutment. As
such, the veracity or existence of the alleged statement of deceased
Sunita is found to be suspicious in nature. That apart, in para 47
clinching evidence of witnesses Mona and Sonam, daughters of
deceased Sunita, has been well discussed. Both the witnesses have
unequivocally stated that appellant Ajab Singh has administered
poisonous substance, pesticide solution, to the deceased that led to
her death. Their testimony has withstood cross-examination and
remained intact. As such, there is critical evaluation of the evidence
placed on record.
As regards the contention of delayed FIR, learned counsel for
the State submits that after completion of enquiry on Merg
intimation and receipt of FSL report of poisonous substance, the
FIR was registered. Hence, the argument in that behalf is of no
consequence.
This Court finds substantial force in the aforesaid submission
and accept the same.
Under such circumstances, prima facie this Court is of the
view that no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A.No.22885/2021 is rejected on merits.
(Rohit Arya) (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
Judge Judge
ms/-
MADHU
SOODAN
PRASAD
2021.11.11
10:00:30 +05'00'
