Smt. Nasreen Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6516 MP

               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   Criminal Appeal No.9660/2018
Jabalpur, dated 8/10/2021
      Mr. Ajeet Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Mr.      Adamya     Bajpai,   learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the
respondent-State.

Heard on I.A. No.9752/2020, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant Smt. Nasreen Khan. Her first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2020 passed on I.A. No.21768/2018.

The appellant herein is the husband of the deceased. On the date of the incident, she is stated to have assaulted her husband with a Sabbal and caused injuries to him because of which he died and thereafter set the body on fire. The sole eyewitness to the incident is the nine year old son of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the child witness is unreliable as the statement was recorded after a period of 41 days while he was in the custody of his grand- parents. Besides, there is no other witness to corroborate the testimony of the child witness.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Hari Om alias Hero vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 345 in which the Supreme Court has held in that case that on account of discrepancies on material aspects, the evidence of the sole child witness was not believable.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the said judgment would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the child witness has been categorical and unambiguous. He further states that in paragraph no.2 the child witness has given a graphic account of the incident and how the appellant had assaulted her husband first with a Sabbal and thereafter the husband/deceased retaliated in order to defend himself but later on stumbled and fell after which the appellant herein is stated to have belaboured the deceased with a Sabbal causing his death and thereafter burnt his body pouring kerosene oil over it.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the statement of the child witness has withstood the test of cross-examination and no discrepancy on material facts has been brought out by the defence. He has further submitted that the fact that the child witness came to the court along with a lawyer and his grand- parents, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not go to shake the evidence given by the child witness. Further, he submits that there are no suggestions or any statement from the child witness that he was ever tutored before he gave his testimony before the learned trial court. He further submits that the injuries suffered by the deceased corroborate the statement given by the child witness.

As regards the delay of 41 days in recording the 161 statement of the child witness, the learned counsel for the State submits that the probability of the child being in a state of shock may have been the reason for recording the statement after such a long delay.

Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, but without reflecting upon them in detail, the application (I.A. No.9752/2020) is dismissed.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN)                               (VISHAL DHAGAT)
      JUDGE                                         JUDGE


 ps


PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA
2021.10.09 12:10:25
+05'30'