Hemraj Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6474 MP

                                                                              1
                                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                                       CRA No. 1888 of 2021
                                                              (HEMRAJ LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                         Dated : 21-04-2023
                                               Shri Shivam Chalotre and Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocates for

                                         appellant.
                                               Shri    Shiv      Kumar      Kashyap      -   Government       Advocate   for
                                         respondent/State.

I.A.No.11670 of 2022 is an application filed by appellant - Hemraj Lodhi

seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2017 the complainant saw the accused running away from the house. When he went inside the house, he found that his daughter-in-law had died. She had suffered various injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by him, a case was initially registered in FIR No.0/2017 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Later on, the same was modified, the case was registered in FIR No.815 of 2017 and he was charged for offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC.

On trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 498-A and 302 of the

IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.319 of 2017. Thereafter, this appeal is filed against the aforesaid judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed Signature Not Verified SAN

to prove the case against the appellant. There is no eye witness to indicate that Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Date: 2023.04.24 18:25:03 IST

he was responsible for the death of his wife. He prays that the jail sentence of

the appellant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. The appellant has committed the murder of his wife. There are grievous injuries found on her body. An axe has been recovered at the behest of the appellant. The complainant is none other than the father of the appellant. The father has seen his son running away from the house at the time of the incident. Immediately thereafter the father on entering the house found that his daughter-in-law had died. Based on this evidence as well as the other material collected by the investigating officer, the appellant was convicted and sentenced

as stated above.

On considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court, prima facie we are of the view that there is nothing that calls for any interference. However, these are the matters for final hearing which would be considered appropriately at that stage. For the present, it is suffice to hold that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, I.A.No.11670 of 2022 is dismissed.

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




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2023.04.24 18:25:03 IST