Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Jeetu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
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 : 06-09-2022
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, Counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Counsel for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.12195/2022; first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant Munni Devi seeking suspension of 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.
As per prosecution story, Laxmi married to 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 and in-laws, therefore, she has burnt herself resulting into her
death. Earlier, she has also mentioned name of the present appellant, but no
allegation of any act or overt act attributable to cause burn injuries. Based upon
the dying declaration, appellant stands convicted.
Shri 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 is a lady aged about 54 years and has no criminal
antecedent and she has already suffered jail incarceration for about four months.
Therefore, this court may consider for suspension of jail sentence.
Per contra, Ms. Gyanani 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 co-accused Jeetu alias
Jitendra 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 is a lady aged about 54 years with no
criminal antecedent and has already suffered jail incarceration for a period of
four months 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 Munni Devi 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 Lacs 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 09/11/2022, 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, her medical
examination be conducted through the jail doctor
and if it is prima facie found that she 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. 12195/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2022.09.07
11:37:28 +05'30'
