Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalu And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65/2012
(Kalu and another Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant no.2 through
Legal Aid.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Session Trial No.369/2010 passed by
Sessions Judge, District Dhar.
The conviction and sentence of the present appellant no.2 Lalita
is as below:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine deposited details Imprisonment in
lieu of Fine
302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 6 months RI
302/34 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 6 months RI
Heard on I.A.No.13866/2022 which is first application for
suspension of sentence filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on
behalf of appellant No.2 Lalita bai.
The first application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant
no.2 Lalita bai was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated
- : 2 :-
09/02/2015.
As per prosecution story, on 10.08.2010 fight was going on
between appellant no.2 and her husband Ram Singh (deceased) when
appellant no.2 directed her son Jugal (PW-5) to call co-accused Kalu,
who is brother of appellant no.2 Lalita. Co-accused Kalu came and gave
a blow by a stone on the head of the Ram Singh (deceased) and
strangulated his neck .Thereafter the present appellant no.2 handed over
a Darata to co-accused Kalu from which he has beheaded Ram Singh
(deceased).
Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that there is no
allegation against appellant no.2 for causing any injuries to the
deceased. The only allegation is that she provided Darata to co-accused
Kalu but there was no provocation to remove his head from the body.
She has completed more than 12 years of actual jail sentence. This
appeal is filed by legal Aid as the present appellant no.2 had no means
to file appeal on her own expenses. As this appeal is of the year 2012 it
is not likely to come for final hearing in near future; hence, in these
circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of jail sentence of
appellant No.2.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes
the prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellant no.2.
Looking to the period of custody, also taking note of the fact that the
appeal is filed through Legal Aid Services Authority and the appeal is of
2012 and there is no likelihood of final hearing of this criminal appeal
in near future, without commenting on the merits of the case, the
application for suspension of sentence I.A. No.13866/2022 is allowed.
Execution of jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Lalita bai is hereby
- : 3 :-
suspended and it is ordered that the appellant No.2 be released on bail
on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with one 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.2 Lalita shall mark her presence before the
Registry of this Court on 12/04/2022 and on all such subsequent and
on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the
Registry.
(VIVEK RUSIA ) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
das Digitally signed by
REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Date: 2022.11.15
10:23:35 +05'30'
