Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8081 MP

                                   --1--            CRA.No.7424/2021

                                CRA.No.7424/2021
                         (Rahul & Ors. vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated 20.6.2022
      Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav,
learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Public Prosecutor for State.
      Heard on the question of admission.
      Admit.
      I.A.No.1491/2022, an application for condonation of delay.
      For the reasons mentioned in the application and the cause shown
by the appellants, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
      I.A.No.1491/2022 stands disposed off.
      Also heard on I.A.No.6359/2022, an application for suspension of
jail sentence of the appellants No.1 and 2 (Rahul Parihar and
Poonamchand Parihar).
      The present appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B, read with Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.75,000/- each
with default stipulation and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- vide
judgment dated 23.11.2021 delivered in S.T.No.02/2017, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri District Dhar.
      As per prosecution story, on 16.09.2018, father of the deceased
Nirmala Bai lodged a missing report of Nirmala Bai which was registered
at Missing Person Report No.70/2016. She was searched, but could not
be found. Thereafter on 18.09.2016, near about 3:30 p.m. Rajesh S/o.
Ramji Sirvi gave information that dead body of the Nirmala Bai has been
found near the Chidi Sangam Ghat of Narmada River. The merg was
recorded at the instance of father of the deceased in which he has shown
                                    --2--            CRA.No.7424/2021

his ignorance about the cause of suicide. Merg investigation was started.
Statements of parents of deceased were recorded in which they alleged
that husband of the deceased was demanding Rs.50,000/- for pursuing
study of B.Ed of deceased due to which she has committed suicide. All
the three appellants i.e., the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law
have been tried and they have been convicted under Section 304-B, read
with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, they are before this Court in the instant
appeal.
      Shri Vyas, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has drawn the
attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1 Bhagwan in which he
has not mentioned any specific date and time of demand of Rs.50,000/-.
Hence, it cannot be said that there was any demand of dowry soon before
the date of incident. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to
the statement of PW-6 - Mohammad in which he states that before
jumping from the bridge, she was talking to one Rakesh and she was
crying also. However, no call details in respect of the call made to
Rakesh soon before incident have been collected by the Investigating
Officer. Husband Rahul has specifically made request to the police for
obtaining the call details. The Investigating Officer in his cross-
examination admits that he has not conducted any investigation with
regard to call details. All the appellants were granted anticipatory bail by
this Court during pendency of trial. With the aforesaid submissions,
learned Sr. counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants No.1 and 2.
      Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State opposes the prayer

for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 by submitting that PW-6 has been disbelieved by the Court. There was a specific allegation of demand of dowry. Since there is an unnatural death within

--3-- CRA.No.7424/2021

seven years of marriage, therefore, the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC have rightly been attracted. Hence, no indulgence is warranted in the matter of suspension of sentence.

In view of the above and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence moved on behalf of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6359/2022 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellants No.1 and 2 (Rahul and Poonamchand) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1.11.2022 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry, the execution of custodial part of the jail sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The Court has not given any reason or justification for imposition of fine amount of Rs. 75,000/- deposited by each of the appellant. Hence, we are not inclined to direct appellants no.1 and 2 to deposit such amount at this stage.

List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy, as per rules.

              (VIVEK RUSIA)                   (AMAR NATH KESHARWANI)
                 JUDGE                               JUDGE


SS/-          SHAILESH MAHADEV
              SUKHDEVE
              2022.06.21 17:22:11 +05'30'