Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6857 MP
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5456 of 2021
(SANJAY TANWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-04-2023
Shri Vivek Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.2491 of 2023, which is an application for early hearing. Matter is already taken up for hearing. Therefore, I.A. No.2491 of 2023 is disposed off being rendered infructuous.
Also heard on I.A. No.2490 of 2023, which is second application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant Sanjay Tanwar.
Appellant has been convicted under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. His earlier application
for grant of suspension under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.03.2022. The judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts. It is neither legal nor correct nor proper. Trial Court has not considered material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration, final conclusion of this appeal would take sufficient long time. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, the execution of the remaining part of the
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 02-05-2023 18:28:18
jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting that on the basis of evidence available on record offence is very brutal. Being husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, they have harassed her and set ablaze her. Therefore, he does not deserve for any mercy.
Both the parties heard at length.
From perusal of the record, it reveals that appellant is the husband of the deceased Kiran Bai and his marriage was solemnized with the deceased 5 years prior to the incident. As per the Post-mortem Report (Ex.P-35), statement of
Dr. Bharat Bajpai (PW-12) and FSL Report (PW-46) the cause of death of deceased was cardio respiratory failure as result of burn and its complications.
During the trial appellant has taken a plea that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident, but he did not examine any defence witness to prove his alibi. Even if the appellant has not set ablaze her wife, but being a husband duty lies upon him to save his wife.
From perusal of the statement of Durga (PW-1), Dashrath (PW-2) and Pooja (PW-3) it reveals that appellant alongwith other co-accused persons have mentally and physically harassed the deceased prior to the incident.
In view of the evidence available on record, at this stage no case is made out for suspension of sentence, therefore, I.A. No.2490 of 2023 is dismissed.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 02-05-2023
18:28:18
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 02-05-2023
18:28:18
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!