Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1 CRA No.6631/2021
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
Criminal Appeal No.6631/2021
Indore, Dated 04.05.2022
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, learned counsel for appellant No.1
Manish s/o Ramesh Singh and appellant No.2 Sakun Bai S/o
Ramesh Singh.
Shri Santosh Thakur, learned Deputy Government Advocate
for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh.
Heard on IA No.28143/2021, first application under Section
389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1
Manish s/o Ramesh Singh and appellant No.2 Sakun Bai S/o
Ramesh Singh.
The present appellants have been convicted and sentenced by
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Circuit Court), Sanawad,
District Mandleshwar (MP) in Sessions Trial No.20/2020 vide
judgment dated 26th October, 2021, as under: -
Accused Conviction Sentence
- Section Act RI Fine amount Imprisonment in lieu of fine
Manish 498-A IPC 2 years Rs.1,000/- 1 month additional RI
306 IPC 10 years Rs.1,000/- 1 month additional RI
Sakun bai 498-A IPC 2 years Rs.1,000/- 1 month additional RI
306 IPC 10 years Rs.1,000/- 1 month additional RI
Appellant No.1 Manish happens to be husband and appellant
No.2 Sakun Bai happens to be mother-in-law of deceased Asha Bai
who had died on account of burn injuries and there is a dying
declaration Ex.P/54 on record as well, however, the same has not
been relied upon by the learned Judge of the trial Court on account
of treating doctor having not examined in the trial Court.
It is submitted that a perusal of the First Information Report
(FIR) Ex.P/41 reveals that it is based on dying declaration of the
deceased wherein she had stated that her mother-in-law has burnt
her as she did not deliver a baby boy. However, in the FIR, a
reference of MLC of the deceased (while she was alive) is also
made wherein it is mentioned that the deceased has suffered burn
injuries while cooking on Nutan Stove. In such circumstances,
coupled with the deposition of PW-1 Kaushalya bai (the mother of
the deceased) wherein she has also stated that the appellant also had
two daughters to whom she had given good education, because of
which, they have also got service, which only demonstrate the
appellant no.2 could not have any reservations about the deceased
giving birth to a girl child. So far as the appellant no.1 is concerned,
Pw/1 has also admitted that while the deceased was admitted in
hospital, she was properly looked after by her husband, the
appellant no.1. Thus, it is submitted that the sentence awarded to
the appellants be suspended.
Heard. In this view of the matter, finding force with the
contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the application (s) for suspension of
custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
case, IA No.28143/2021 is allowed, subject to depositing the fine
amount, if any, and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond
by each of the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his / her regular
appearance before concerned trial Court, the execution of the
custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant (s) shall
remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant (s), after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
/ her presence before the concerned trial Court on 11.08.2022 and
on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned
Court in this regard.
C. c. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
rcp
RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE
2022.05.07 17:50:51 +05'30'
