Umashankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 637 MP

                                  1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 7343 of 2019
             (UMASHANKAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 13-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants / accused.
      Shri S.K. Malvi, PL for the respondent-State.

Heard on I.A.No.774/2021 filed by the appellants / accused Devki and Suman Bai under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence awarded by the Court of 2nd Additional Session Judge, Begumganj,

District Raisen in S.T.No.2/18 vide its judgment dated 27.7.2019 convicting the appellants / accused under section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

It is submitted that the finding of the learned trial court is contrary to law and there is a strong possibility to succeed in the case. A bare perusal of testimony of purported eye witness i.e. PW-3 makes it clear that there remains no scintilla of doubt that there is not even a whisper in his examination with regard to the involvement of the present appellants for the alleged incident.

The statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, omissions and embellishments which renders the whole prosecution story suspicious. Further, the appellants being lady are in custody since 27.7.2019. There is no likelihood of their absconding. If the appellants are not released on bail, the purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated.

Learned PL has vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection, stating that the present appellants have played active role along with other co-accused persons in commission of the aforesaid offence. The deceased was mother-in-law of the present appellants.

Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that there is sound evidence against the appellants to prove the aforesaid charge. Sushil Kumar (PW-6)

Tahsildar has recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) of the deceased in which she has specifically stated against the present appellants. Dr. R.S. Patel (PW-5) who medically examined the deceased has stated that Sushil Kumar (PW-6) has recorded dying declaration of the deceased and at the time of recording statement, the deceased was fully capable to give her statement. In view of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses coupled with dying

declaration of the deceased, at this stage, the appellants viz Devki and Suman Bai are not entitled to get the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Hence, the said IA is dismissed.

List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.

                                          (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                             JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                                     JP




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR
PAROUHA
Date: 2022.01.14 11:37:42 IST