Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogeshwari @ Monti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4124 of 2017
(YOGESHWARI @ MONTI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-02-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Malvi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
Record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard o n I.A. No.19489/2021, which is repeat (second) application
under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Yogeshwari @ Monti who stands
convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment dated 05/09/2017 passed in S.T.No.757/2016 by
Third Additional Session Judge, Bhopal District - Bhopal (MP). Earlier
application was dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
committed error in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence
in proper perspective. The appellant gave a single blow of knife, therefore, it
cannot be said that she is having any intention to commit the murder of
deceased. The appellant is a lady and she is not having any criminal
antecedents. There is no eye witness in this case. The case of the
prosecution is based upon conjectures and surmises. The complainant (PW-
1) Ms. Abha Kaneriya, who has lodged the FIR, has also not supported the
prosecution case. There is no direct evidence against the appellant connecting
him with the alleged offence. Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 302 of IPC are completely missing. The appellant is in custody
since 05/06/2016 and has completed more than 5 years in jail and final
hearing of this appeal will take a long time in this Covid Pandemic Era.
Hence, the remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be suspended.
T he prayer is opposed by Shri Malvi, learned Panel Lawyer on the
basis of the written objection.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidence available on record and looking to custody period of the appellant
which is more than 5 years but without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, this application is allowed. It is directed that subject to payment
of fine amount, if not already paid, the execution of remaining jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and
she shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond for the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Bhopal
on 22.06.2022 and such further dates as may be fixed in this regard.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2022.02.03 14:06:13 IST
