Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vandana Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A. No. 6839/2021
(Vandana Pawar vs. The State of M.P.)
Jabalpur Dated 13.01.2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vasant Daniel, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Jubin Prasad, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
Record of the trial Court is received and the same is perused.
Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.
I.A. no. 20316/2021, first application for suspension of sentence
moved on behalf of appellant Vandana Pawar u/Sec. 389(1) Cr.P.C. is
taken up and considered along with the reply of the State.
This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 29.10.2021 passed
in Sessions Trial No. 61/2019 by Sessions Judge, District Seoni, (M.P.),
whereby appellant has been convicted as under :-
Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence
302 Life Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- R.I. for 1 year
The prosecution story, in short, is that on 20.2.2019 at about 10:00
a.m. in the morning appellant came to the police station Seoni along with
her child Anshu and gave information to Station House Officer that she has
strangulated her husband; namely, Shyam Rao Pawar by use of chunni and
also disclosed that the body of deceased is lying at the welding shop of
deceased situated at village Bamhodi. Thereafter, the Station House Officer
recorded the afore-mentioned information in the form of Roznamcha then
registered the FIR and recorded confessional statement under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the appellant. It is further the case of
the prosecution that the investigating officer accompanied by appellant
went to the spot and discovered the dead body of the deceased and the
alleged chunni which is being purported as the weapon in the offence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has further submitted that the
case of the prosecution is bad in law as the conception of the case is on a
fact which is rendered inadmissible when read in the light of Sections 25
and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fact that it was appellant itself
who disclosed information about commission of the offence and was
proceeded on without any independent evidence which is illegal and no
conviction can be made out on such evidence. He has further argued that
the prosecution has no evidence other than the unconstitutional (as it is
held by article 20(3) of the Constitution of India), self incriminatory
confessional statement made by the appellant and the same cannot be
relied upon in the light of case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar
1966 AIR 119. He has again submitted that even the recovery of the
chunni is highly doubtful as there are no reliable witnesses to prove the
said recovery.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State has argued
that there are sufficient grounds to indicate that it was appellant who
committed the murder of deceased, therefore, looking to the gravity of
offence, appellant should not be granted bail.
In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia (supra), the Apex Court held that
an FIR recorded on the basis of the accused cannot be admitted in evidence
to the extent to which it is a confession, in view of ban provided in Section
25 Evidence Act; however, the information contained in the FIR leading to
discovery of the facts in consequence of such information can be used in
view of the provision under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
In the light of the law laid down in case of Aghnoo Nagesia
(supra), we have considered the evidence available on record with respect
to the discovery of facts in consequence of the information allegedly
provided by the appellant herein. As per the prosecution story the dead
body of deceased and the chunni allegedly used to strangulate the deceased
are said to have been recovered on the basis of the confessional FIR lodged
by the appellant herein. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
our attention towards the evidence of the independent witness PW-3
Swarupchand who was examined to prove the recovery of dead body and
the chunni. This witness is silent in his examination-in-chief about the
recovery of dead body as per Exhibit- P-16. In the cross-examination he has
categorically stated that the T.I. had called this witness inside the room
after his conversation with the appellant and the documents regarding
seizure were prepared after two days from the alleged recovery. The other
witness Anil Kumar before whom the recovery was carried out has not been
examined. The chunni allegedly used to strangulate the deceased was
seized from an open place. The report of Serologist also does not determine
the blood group of blood stains found on the chunni.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, I.A. No.
20316/2021 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant
Vandana Pawar will remain under suspension subject to verification that
the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant furnishing bail
bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned available
Magistrate for her appearance before the concerned available Magistrate
on 06/04/2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed which shall be of
frequency not less than once a year.
In case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned
Magistrate then the said Magistrate shall be free to issue and execute
warrant of arrest for securing her presence without first referring the
matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
The learned concerned Magistrate and the prosecution is directed to
ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time
to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State
Govt during release, travel and residence of the appellant during period of
suspension of sentence as a consequence of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.
C.C. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
vkv /-
Digitally signed by
VINAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2022.01.19
17:19:06 +05'30'
