Dhiru @ Sharda Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15672 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       CRA No. 7498 of 2021
                                     (DHIRU @ SHARDA SAKET AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 28-11-2022
                                  Shri Amit Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                  Shri Prasannajeet Chatterjee, learned G.A. for respondent -State.

Heard on I.A. No.15328/2022 application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Durga Prasad Saket and Ms. Vimla Saket arising out of judgment dated 30.10.2021 delivered in S.T. No.211/2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan, District- Satna is taken up.

T he appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, under Section 498 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 4 and of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellants by taking this Court to the prosecution story submits that the victim (daughter-in-law of appellant No. 2 and 3) was hospitalized on 01.03.2018 because of certain burn injuries. As per the case of

the defence, she was injured because she caught fire while cooking in the kitchen whereas case of the prosecution is that the deceased died within 7 years from the marriage and soon before her death the appellants/accused persons demanded dowry from her and she was subjected to cruelty.

Shri Amit Choudhary submits that statement of prosecution witnesses are vague. The victim was hospitalized and remained under treatment from 01.03.2018 to 08.03.2018. No efforts were made to record her statement her Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 11/29/2022 2:13:12 PM

statement by the prosecution. The investigating officer (PW-10) deposed that during investigation he did not record any statement of family members of the deceased. The statement of PW-2 is also vague. The treating doctor was not examined in the trial. The statement of defence witness was wrongly disbelieved by the court below. Final hearing of this appeal may take time, therefore remaining jail sentence of these appellants may be suspended.

Shri P. Chatterjee learned P.L. opposed the prayer. I have heard the parties and perused the record. Considering the nature of accusations and evidence on record at this stage when appellant remained in custody for a very short period, no case is

made out for suspension of sentence.

Appellants may renew his application after one year from today.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

Akm

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 11/29/2022 2:13:12 PM