Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Jeetu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5091 of 2022
(JITENDRA @ JEETU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-10-2022
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya - Counsel - for the appellant No.1.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor - for the
Respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.14348/2022, first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Jitendra alias Jitu seeking suspension
o f sentence and grant of bail. The said appellant stands convicted under
Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and sentenced to 12 years RI, 03 years IR and 02 years RI respectively, with
fine of Rs.10,000/-, 5000/-, and 3000/-, respectively, vide judgment dated
08.04.2022. Appellant is in jail since 08.04.2022.
A s per prosecution story, Laxmi married to appellant Jeetu alias
Jeetendra. After having suffered burn injuries, she was rushed to hospital on
29.04.2015 where she passed away. It is alleged that while she was admitted she
had recorded her dying declaration at about 2:00 pm on 29.04.2015 (Ex. P/11)
wherein she has alleged of having quarrelsome situation at home and having
strained relationship with her husband/appellant and in-laws, therefore, she has
burnt herself resulting into her death. No overt act is attributed against the
appellant to cause burn injuries. Based upon the dying declaration, appellant
stands convicted.
S hri P.S. Bhadoriya, learned Counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgment submits that father Ajay Singh (PW/1),
mother Meerabai (PW/2), uncle Pradeep Singh (PW/3), Mausa Raghuvar Singh
(PW/5) (named in the dying declaration as Mama alleged to be present while
the incident occurred), have turned hostile and have not supported the story of
prosecution. That apart, even Dr. R.K. Agarwal (PW/4) who conducted the
MLC and treated the deceased in hospital, in paras 3 and 4, has stated that the
deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries and was not in conscious state and
fit to make a statement. That apart, Even Tehsildar, Executive Authority
(PW/6) though who has proved the said document, has stated in para-9 that the
deceased was not in a position to put her thumb impression, therefore, he had
lifted the thumb and put it on the said dying declaration. Under such
circumstances, the said dying declaration is suspicious. Even otherwise, no
allegation has been made against the appellant having caused burn injuries. That
apart, if the depositions of the parents of deceased are sifted, it would come on
surface that she happened to be suffering from depression in the past as well,
therefore, under such circumstances, the conviction is based on surmises and
conjectures and not on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record. Even
otherwise, appellant has no criminal antecedent and he has already suffered jail
incarceration for about one and half year . Therefore, this court may consider
for suspension of jail sentence.
Per contra, Shri Shrivastva, while supporting the impugned judgement
submits that although the conviction is based upon sole dying declaration,
nevertheless, same is proved and appellant's name does appear in the said dying
declaration. The marriage between the deceased and appellant was solemnized
on 05.12.2014 and death has occurred on 29.04.2015, within less than a year's
time, therefore, presumption of harassment on the part of the appellant and
other co-accused cannot be ruled out resulting into homicidal death of the
deceased. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of
sentence.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon the rival contentions, touching the merits of the case, regard
being had to the fact that appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for a
period of one and half year and was on bail during trial.
Therefore, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances referred
above, we are of the view that appellant is entitled for suspension of jail
sentence. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of
appellant no.1 Jitendra alias Jitu shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) with one solvent surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to
deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 13/12/2022, and on further dates as may be directed
by the Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:
( i ) Appellant will abide by the terms and
conditions of various circulars and orders issued
by the Government of India and the State
Government as well as the local administration
from to time in the matter of maintaining social
distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to
avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus
(COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed
that before releasing appellant, his medical
examination be conducted through the jail doctor
and if it is prima facie found that he is having any
symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential
follow up action including the isolation/quarantine
or any further test required be undertaken
immediately.
(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to
apply for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 14348/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rks
RAM KUMAR SHARMA
2022.10.14 18:05:29 +05'30'
