Mohd. Sultan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6373 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 3837 of 2018
                                            (MOHD. SULTAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 20-04-2023
                                Shri M.Shafiqullah - Advocate for appellant.

                                Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for respondent.

I.A. No. 1155 of 2023 is the second application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of accused - Mohd. Sultan, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and

sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2014 at about 04.20 P.M. kerosene was poured on the deceased and she was lit on fire. She was thereafter taken to the hospital. A case was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased died on 03.09.2014 and, therefore, the case was registered under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 120-B of the I.P.C. On investigation, a charge sheet was filed against six accused. Five of them have

been acquitted by the impugned judgment. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dying declaration is doubtful. That, the medical evidence indicates that the hands of the deceased were burnt and, therefore, the dying declaration could not contain thumb impression. The evidence of doctor would indicate that she suffered 75% burn. In the dying declaration she has clearly implicated the appellant. She has narrated the manner in which the offence has taken place. Therefore, on merits Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 4/25/2023 12:21:25 PM

prima facie we are of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court appears to be just and proper. However, the matter requires to be reconsidered at the stage of final hearing.

The secondary contention of the petitioner is to the effect that in terms of the judgment dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The State of U.P. and others), the appellant is entitled to be released on bail since he has already undergone a custody of about 8 years 10 months.

On considering the same, we are of the view that the said judgment would not be applicable to the case at hand. There are certain exceptions made out in

the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. manner in which the crime is being committed and gruesomeness of the same etc. In the instance case, the appellant is none other than the husband of the deceased. He has intentionally poured kerosene on his wife and burnt her alive. Therefore, the case would not come under the exceptions as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the period of custody as undergone with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be applicable to the case at hand.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Hence, I.A.No.1155 of 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is dismissed.

Admit.

Call for the records.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 4/25/2023 12:21:25 PM

(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE AM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 4/25/2023 12:21:25 PM