Devendra Alias Deepu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6433 MP

                                                                           1                                 CRA-1324-2016
                                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           CRA-1324-2016
                                                (DEVENDRA ALIAS DEEPU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        33
                                        Jabalpur, Dated : 05-10-2021
                                              Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                              Per: Virender Singh, J.

Shri Madan Mohan Jaiswal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Shri Sameer Qureshi, counsel for the objector.

Heard on I.A. No.1627/2020.

This is the fourth application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence of appellant No.2-Smt.Uma Verma. Her earlier applications viz. I.A. No.9822/2017, I.A. No.6647/2019 & I.A. No.21410/2019 have been dismissed for want of prosecution vide orders dated 10.12.2018, 07.08.2019 and 10.01.2020 respectively.

2. Appellant No.2/applicant Uma Verma has been convicted under Sections 394 read with Sections 397, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, R.I. for life and R.I. for 3 years respectively with

fine of Rs.500/- for each respective offence, with default stipulations.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye- witness of the incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution could not establish the circumstance. The dead body has been recovered after 6 days of the incident and surprisingly identified by the husband of the deceased before it was excavated. The recovery made from the possession of the applicant is doubtful. There was no motive for the incident. Only one injury has been observed in the post-mortem. Co-accused Chhotu @ Surendra has been granted suspension. The case of the present applicant is not different from the case of co-accused Chhotu @ Surendra. The applicant is a woman and Signature Not Verified SAN she has served out more than 7 years of sentence.

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2021.10.05 17:41:06 IST 2 CRA-1324-2016

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to para 40 of the impugned judgement and also submitted that the appeal would take time to be heard finally, therefore, her sentence be suspended.

5. Per contra, the State has opposed the bail application stating that on the date of the incident, three eyewitnesses had seen the deceased going to

the house of the applicant and thereafter, she had never seen alive. There was recovery of mangalsutra of the deceased from the possession of the present applicant. Blood stains grams have also been recovered from her possession. The witnesses of recovery and identification have supported the case of the prosecution. The applicant was not even granted bail during trial. Her case is different to the case of co-accused Chhotu @ Surendra as allegation against co-accused Chhoutu @ Surendra was only to make the evidence disappear, therefore, parity does not exist in favour of the applicant. The trial Court has discussed all these circumstances in sequences and has concluded in para 37 of the impugned judgment. The conclusions are well supported by the evidence produced by the prosecution, therefore, no case for granting suspension to appellant No.2/applicant Uma Verma is made out.

6. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have perused the record.

7. On going through the unchallenged testimonies of Ganpati Bai (PW-

1), Sulochana (PW-2), Rajat (PW-3) that prior to missing, they had seen the deceased going to the house of the applicant. Statement of Ajeet Rajput (PW-

5) who has confirmed that the applicant had mortgaged mangalsutra of the deceased, the statements of Kailash (PW-6) and Sheikh Sultan (PW-12) who have supported the recovery, statement of Dr. R.K. Verma (PW-15) supported with the post-mortem report prepared by him, statement of Investigating Officer K.S. Chandel (PW-19), the other evidence available on record and also finding that the case of applicant-Uma Verma is not identical to the case of co-accused Chhotu @ Surendra, in the considered opinion of

Signature Not Verified SAN this Court, no case for granting suspension to appellant No.2/applicant Uma

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2021.10.05 17:41:06 IST 3 CRA-1324-2016 Verma is made out,

8. Consequently, I.A. No.1627/2020 is dismissed.

                                          (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)                              (VIRENDER SINGH)
                                                 JUDGE                                               JUDGE


                                        @shish




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2021.10.05 17:41:06 IST