Premkunwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7059 MP

                                    1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT INDORE
                             CRA No. 1314 of 2015
               (PREMKUNWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 10-05-2022
      Shri Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant no.1.

      Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.5138/2022 which is repeat second application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence on behalf of appellant no.1 Prem Kunwar.

The first application for temporary suspension of jail sentence of

appellant no.1 was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2019 on account of death of her husband.

The appellant no.1, who has been convicted under Sections, 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I and Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated 10.09.2015 delivered in Sessions Trial No.123/2014 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora District Ratlam.

As per prosecution story, the marriage of deceased Mamta and Dhara Singh was held on 21.05.2013. Thereafter she started living in the house of her

in-laws. Some dispute arose between them. Thereafter Dharasingh and Mamta (deceased) started living in a separate house. On 11.03.2014, near about 08:00 PM, she came out from the house in burning condition and was immediately taken to the hospital by her husband Dhara Singh. Information was sent to the police station and investigation set into motion. The police recorded her statement (Ex-D-1) in which she has stated that she suffered burn injuries while cooking food in her house. On the next day, i.e,12.03.2014, a dying declaration

of the deceased was recorded in which she has alleged that near about 8.00 PM she went to the house of her father-in-law to take some article where her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started assaulting her. Thereafter father-in-law Ramsingh and sister-in-law Vidya Kuwar caught her and mother-in-law (present appellant) poured kerosene from chimney and burned her. On the basis of the dying declaration, FIR under Section 498-A, 304 (B), 302 and 302/34 of IPC was registered against Ram Singh, Prem Kunwar and Vidya Kuwar. They were tried and convicted as stated above. During the pendency of this appeal father- in-law of the deceased Ram Singh expired.

Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 submits the learned trial Court has

wrongly disbelieved Ex-D-1 which was immediately recorded in which deceased has not alleged anything. It is further stated that as per Ex- D-1, spot map and Ex- P14, the incident said to have taken place in the house of the deceased but as per the dying declaration the incident said to have taken place at the house of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Therefore, there is no corroboration in respect of the place of incident disclosed in the dying declaration. Rajendra Singh (PW-2) and Umakuwar (PW-3) father and mother of the deceased have not supported the case of prosecution and have also denied any cruelty or demand of dowry by the appellants. Even the husband of the deceased has not supported the case of prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no.1 Prem Kunwar is having parity with appellant no.2 Vidhya Kuwar, who has already been granted the benefit of suspension vide detailed order dated 25.03.2022. Under such circumstances, counsel for the appellant no.1 prays for suspension of jail sentence.

Learned Govt.Advocate for respondent/State has argued on the basis of

reply filed in I.A.No.7549/2021 and opposes the prayer for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant no.1.

After considering the entire material available on record, the parity of present appellant no.1 with appellant no.2 Vidhya Kunwar and 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 no.1 deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5138/2022 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant no.1 Prem Kunwar in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for her appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant no.1 Prem Kunwar after being enlarged on bail, shall mark her presence before concerned trial court on 26/09/2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by Trial Court concerned.

I.A.No.6304/2022 an application for early hearing also stands disposed of.

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

das        Digitally signed by
           REENA PARTHO
           SARKAR
           Date: 2022.05.11
           10:16:43 +05'30'