Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinita Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7566 of 2022
(VINITA BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-12-2022
Shri Anand Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on IA.13736/2022, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail moved on behalf of the sole appellant.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurwai, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.179/2015, whereby
appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 34 IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
A s per prosecution story, Ashok S/o Rajaram lodged a report to the
Police Station Pathari to the effect that in the month of 2014, his wife Vinita Bai
aged 42 years (as now) and Dinesh Thakur, who had an evil eye on her, had
developed illicit relationship. During interregum, he came to his house 3-4 times
to meet his wife Vinita Bai. On the fateful day i.e. on 27.03.2015 at about 5 in
the evening Dinesh Thakur came to his house. At that time he and his wife were
at home. Dinesh Thakur uttered that he would sleep with his wife today and will
continue to do so. The complainant tried his best to get him understood that
this would diminish their reputation in the society; however, Dinesh Thakur
refused for the same, on which Vinita Bai caught hold of the hand of Dinesh
Thakur and complainant Ashok throttled the neck of the deceased by means of
a towel which led to his death. On the basis of such report, FIR at Crime
No.33/2015 was registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC. After completion of
investigation, challan was filed, whereafter the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions Court, Morena which was transmitted to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Kurwai, District Vidisha (M.P.).
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Judge has not taken into
consideration the relevant evidence placed on record. The impugned judgment
is based on presumptions and assumptions. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that appellant is lady-widow who is innocent and has no criminal
antecedents. It is further submitted by him that during trial, prosecution
witnesses i.e. (PW-1) to (PW-5) which are the family members and
neighbourers turned hostile and belied the story of prosecution. (PW-11) who is
the mother of the deceased also turned hostile. Moreso, during pendency of
trial co-accused Ashok died. Now, the appellant-widow is in custody and her
children are on the mercy of co-villagers who are taking care of them. The
appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the
appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution of
the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and she may be enlarged on
bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, while
supporting the judgment impugned opposed the application and prayed for its
rejection.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being had to the fact
that the appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of
the appeal in near future, this Court is of the view that the application deserves
to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution of jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and she shall
b e enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the
fine amount (if not already deposited) for her appearance before the Registry of
this Court on 20.02.2023, and on further dates as may be directed by the
Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:
(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars
and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as
well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social
distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel
Corona virus (COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant, her medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it
is prima facie found that she is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the
consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further
test required be undertaken immediately.
(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation
of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.13736/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made on the facts shall have no
bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
rahul
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0
cde4dee473fe77953f5,
pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D48
7,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD
4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2022.12.08 17:29:12 +05'30'
