Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRA No. 7900/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH INDORE
BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRA No. 7900 of 2018
(DHARMENDRA RAJPUT & OTHERS. V/S. STATE OF M.P.)
Date: 28.04.2023 :
Shri Anil Kant Khare, learned Sr. Advocate with Smt. Sudha
Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.15532/2022, a repeat (2nd) application filed
u/s. 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of
appellant No.1 - Dharmendra Rajput. The first application was
dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 27.7.2022, whereas by the
same order, the jail sentence of appellants No.2 - Rajpal Rajput and
appellant No.3 - Kanha Rajput have been suspended.
As per the prosecution story, on 08.11.2015 appellant No.2 -
Rajpal gave an information to the Police Station Kanvan that Mrs.
Sapna wife of the appellant No.1 has died due to burst in the gas
cylinder. Police recorded the information in the Rojnamcha No.345
and proceeded to the spot, where the Sapna was found lying dead in a
burnt condition. Police suspected the crime and sent the dead body for
postmortem and the death was found homicidal. On the basis of the
statement of the parents of the deceased, FIR was registered against all
the three appellants under Section 302, 498-A, 201 and 177/34 of the
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the
appellants. They were put to trial, where they denied the charges and
pleaded innocence. After evaluating the evidence, learned Court below
- : 2 :-
CRA No. 7900/2018
has convicted the appellants as stated above.
Shri Anil Kant Khare, learned senior counsel for the appellant
No.1 submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time
of incidence, the appellant No.1 was not in the house. The allegation
of demand of Rs.7.00 Lakhs is also unfounded because the appellant
had already got delivery of the Duster on 30.3.2015 i.e. before the date
of marriage. The injuries found on the body of the deceased were not
sufficient to cause death and the body was burnt after the death,
therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the actual cause of death.
He further submits that the appellant No.1 is in jail since last more
than 7 years and the appeal which is of the year 2018 which is not
likely to come up for final hearing in near future, therefore, in the light
of judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sudan Singh V/s. State
of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021 decided on 5.10.2021, the jail
sentence of appellant No.1 is liable to be suspended.
On the other hand, Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt.
Advocate appearing for respondent/State opposes the prayer by
submitting that all the grounds raised in this repeat application were
raised in the first application also, but the learned senior counsel for
the appellant did not press the application on behalf of appellant No.1
and now within 6-7 months, this repeat application has been filed
without there being any change in the circumstances, hence, the same
is liable to be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the record of court below.
It is correct that all the grounds raised in the present repeat
application have been raised in the first application also and now
- : 3 :-
CRA No. 7900/2018
within 6-7 months the present repeat application has been filed
without there being any change in the circumstances. So far as
demand of dowry is concerned, the learned trial Court has held that
only the margin money was paid to purchase Duster and the remaining
amount was to be paid for which appellant took loan, hence the
deceased was put to torture for the balance amount of value of the
vehicle. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and assault before
death and thereafter she was burnt in the house. The appellant No.1
has failed to establish the plea of alibi that he was not in the house at
the time of incidence. Undispuedly, the deceased died in an unnatural
condition within 7 years of marriage. A false defence was taken to
misguide the police that Sapna died because of the blast of gas-
cylinder, whereas particles of kerosene were found on the spot as well
as on body of the deceased. The burden was on appellant No.1 to
establish as to how his wife died in suspicious circumstances in the
house which he failed to discharge.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to suspend the jail
sentence of appellant No.1. Accordingly, I.A. No.15532/2022 is
rejected. I.A. No.4567/2023, an application for early hearing, stands
disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] [ANIL VERMA]
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.05.02 11:54:38 +05'30'
