Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju @ Prahlad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4052 of 2018
(RAJU @ PRAHLAD AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-05-2022
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants No.1 & 2.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Public Prosecutor for State.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press
I.A.No.9406/2019 filed on behalf of appellant No.1 (Raju).
It is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
I.A.No.14218/2021 is 2nd application for suspension of jail sentence filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C on behalf of the appellant No.2 who has been convicted
by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain, vide judgment dated 28.4.2018 passed in
S.T.No.391/2016 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B
of IPC, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and 14 years RI
with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default clause on each count.
As per prosecution story, on 15.1.2016 Mahesh S/o. Dayaram, gave an
information to the police station Chimanganj Mandi that Suresh Kumar Thakur lying
dead in the house of Raju contractor and the house is locked from outside. The police
reached to the spot and found the dead body. As per the evidence appellant No.1 was
residing with his wife in the said house. On 15.1.2016 he was seen on the roof of the
house and ran away from his motorcycle. A dead body was found naked with full of
blood. As per postmortem report, he died because of incised wound caused by sword.
Since the appellants were arrested. The blood stained petticoat of appellant No.2
Santosh Bai was recovered. Accordingly, the police filed the charge sheet against the
appellant and Tejkaran against whom trial is still going on.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Santosh Bai has been implicated
with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. She has neither abetted nor committed the murder
Signature Not Verified
SAN
of Suresh. She ran away from the spot by putting a lock as Raju was intending to kill her
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.12 14:30:40 IST also and therefore, the police has wrongly cameup with the theory of conspiracy under
Section 120B of IPC. She has 4 daughters and her husband is also in jail and all are
reaching to the age of marriage. Hence, it is prayed that application for suspension of
jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.2 be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and prays for
rejection of the application for suspension of jail sentence.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No14218/2021. is allowed and it is
directed that upon depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond to the
tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court, the substantive jail sentence of appellant No.2 (Santosh Bai) shall remain
suspended till the final disposal of the appeal and she be released on bail for her
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27.10.2022 and all other subsequent
dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry of this Court.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.12 14:30:40 IST
