Sachin Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9892 MP

                                    --1--




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                                  BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                      &
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)


                           CRA No. 80 of 2022

 (SACHIN PATIDAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Dated : 19-07-2022
      Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.5003/2022, which is the first application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant No.3- Smt. Manjubai Patidar.

The appellants have been convicted vide judgment dated 08.12.2021 in Session Trial No.200434/2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Dharampuri, District-Dhar under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant No.3 has been sentenced as mentioned below:-

            Conviction                           Sentence
    Section & Act               Imprisonment Fine deposited Imprisonment
                                             details        in lieu of Fine
    Sec. 302 of I.P.C.          Life            Rs.15000/-     3 Years R.I.
                                imprisonment
    Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition 5 years         Rs.65,000/-     1 Year R.I.
    Act

As per prosecution story, on 26.07.2017 at about 11.30 pm,

--2--

Saloni @ Sindhu (deceased) was brought in dead condition by Vishnu S/o Parasram at Government Hospital, Dhamnod and further informed that deceased died at her home. Information regarding that was sent to police station Dhamnod, on that information, Merg intimation No.94/2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at police station- Dhamnod and after merg inquiry, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-9 was registered by SDO(P), Dhamnod PW-10 and on the basis of Ex.P-9, F.I.R. No.497/16 under Section 304B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against appellant No.3 and appellant Nos.1 and 2. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased got married to co-accused Sachin Patidar on 06.04.2012 and was residing along with the applicant and other co-accused persons and all the accused persons collectively used to harass the deceased on account of demand of dowry. During the investigation, the appellants were arrested and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 304B, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Court, District-Dhar and after that the case was made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, District-Dhar for trial. The trial court framed the charges against the appellants under Section 304B in alternate 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellants denied the charges framed against them and pleaded for trial. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and 29 articles. After evaluating the evidence that came on record, the learned trial court has found the appellants guilty and

--3--

convicted and sentenced as per para 40 of impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this criminal appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants were wrongly convicted and sentenced for the offence and conviction is bad in law. The appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have nothing to do with the alleged crime. The learned trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in right prospect. The trial court has committed an error in believing the evidence of prosecution witness despite there being many omissions and contradictions in their statements. He further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstance are not complete and prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstance which indicates towards alleged crime acted by the appellants, besides that the trial court has passed the order of conviction and sentence against appellant No.3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no internal or external injury was found by the doctor who has conducted the postmortem of deceased and it is the case of suicide but trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 302 of IPC. In support of the application, affidavit of Parasram Patidar S/o Shri Sitaram Ji Patidar (father-in-law of appellant No.3) has been filed. Hence, prays for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant No.3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and submits that the trial court has passed the judgment after proper appreciation of evidence came on record and has rightly held

--4--

these appellants guilty and prays for rejection of suspension application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Looking to the Naksha Panchayatnama of dead body Ex.P-2, FSL report Ex.P-17, call detail report and looking at the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8, no case is made out for suspension of sentence at this stage. Accordingly, I.A. No.5003/2022 is rejected.

                      (VIVEK RUSIA )                    (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

       N.R.

Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2022.07.22
19:10:11 +05'30'