Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhram Barela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1489 of 2017
(SUKHRAM BARELA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 16-02-2022
Shri Shashikant Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 through Legal
Aid Services.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, P.L. for respondent / State.
Heard on I.A.No.29568 of 2021, an application for suspension of jail
sentence of the appellant No.3 Kelabai who has been convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 201 of IPC has been
sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment dt.18.2.2016 passed by the 2nd ASJ, Mhow, District Indore.
As per prosecution story, on 10.3.2010 near about 11.25 AM an information
received at Kishan Ganj police station on telephone that a dead body of unknown
person who appears to be aged about 35 years is lying in forest of Amba Chandan.
The police went to the spot and recovered the body. The dead body was identified
as Chain Singh. The matter was taken up into investigation and it was found that
these co-accused Sukhram, Motiram, Prakash and Radheyshyam are brother-in-
law who along with others have caught hold him, murdered and thrown his dead
body in the forest. They have committed the murder at the instance of wife of
Chain Singh Kelabai, i.e., the present appellant. The police has registered a case
under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC against as many as six accused persons,
out of which Shriram @ Shivram has not been arrested so far.
The prosecution has examined the son of the deceased Rajaram (PW.16)
who has stated that he has witnesses the entire incident. Thereafter on a disclosure
by this appellant, the police has recovered axe from the house of the appellant. As
per the autopsy report, the death was found homicidal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has convicted
the appellant on the basis of testimony of Rajaram whose conduct become
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
MAHADEV
doubtful as he immediately did not lodge the report despite seeing the incident.
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.02.17
Even otherwise, as per his statement his mother was only present on the spot when
12:27:09 IST
his maternal uncle was assaulting his father. At the most she is liable to be
convicted under Section 201 of IPC for disposing of the dead body of the
deceased. She is in jail since 10.3.2010 and this appeal is not likely to be heard
finally. Her condition is very poor hence sought a Legal Aid for filing this appeal.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State opposed the application for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.3 and prays for its rejection.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also
considering the material evidence available on the record, we deem it fit to allow
the application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.3. Accordingly,
I.A.No.29568/2021 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine
amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.3 in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court for her appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of
the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of the appeal. The
appellant No.3 after being enlarged on bail and shall mark her presence before the
concerned trial Court on 21.3.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be
fixed in this behalf by the trial Court.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.02.17
12:27:09 IST
