Smt. Rajkumari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13200 MP

                                                             1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 443 of 2018
                                            (SMT. RAJKUMARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 14-08-2023
                                 Shri Amin Khan, learned counsel for appellant.

                                 Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla- learned Additional Advocate General for
                          respondent- State.

Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:-

Heard on IA.No.14732 of 2023, sixth application und er Section 389(1) of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant Smt. Raj Kumari for suspension

of jail sentence and grant of bail whose previous five suspension applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

Vid e judgment dated 29th of September, 2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2014, the appellant with co-accused Sonu (in connected Criminal Appeal No. 2612 of 2018) has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11-04-2014 complainant

Siyasharan had gone to Pithampura, the in-laws house of his daughter Babli and told her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband to send his daughter with him. When they refused to send his daughter, he stayed at Pithampura in the night and in the next morning when he again asked to send his daughter with him, her in-laws refused to send her. Thereafter, he went out and sat down outside the house. Thereafter, her mother-in-law Raj Kumari (present appellant) told to kill his daughter Babli, poured kerosene on her and husband of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 8/14/2023 5:30:24 PM

daughter Sonu set her on fire, as a result of which the body of his daughter got burnt on her back, stomach, both thighs and at different parts of body. The villagers came and extinguished fire. Her husband Sonu and mother-in-law Rajkumari (present appellant) thereafter ran away. He brought his daughter to District Hospital for treatment. On the basis of which, a dying declaration of his daughter Babli was recorded. Initially a Dehati Nalishi vide No. 0 of 2014 was recorded at Police Station Pawai under Section 307 of IPC. Babli died during treatment whose merg information was sent by Dr. RN Rajouria. Based on the above information, matter was taken up for investigation. Crime No.31 of 2014 was registered under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After completion

of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet under Sections 302/34 in the alternative 306 of IPC was filed before the competent Court from where case was committed to Sessions Court. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court after appreciating the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the present appellant along with co- convicted accused Sonu and sentenced them vide impugned judgment, as mentioned above.

It is contended by counsel for appellant that prosecution witnesses PW1 Nathuram Samadhiya, PW2 Sunita, PW3 Siyasharan, PW4 Rajesh, PW7 Rajkumar and PW8 Kamlesh did not support prosecution version. Dying declaration of deceased was not properly recorded. Without appreciating prosecution evidence properly, the trial Court has wrongly convicted present appellant. The appellant (mother-in-law of deceased) is a lady aged about 49 years. During trial, she remained in custody since 23-06-2014 till 25-04-2016 i.e. near about two years and from the date of passing of impugned judgment she is in custody i.e. means she has already suffered jail incarceration of near about more than seven and half years. Fine amount has already been deposited. This Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 8/14/2023 5:30:24 PM

appeal is of the year 2018 and its final outcome will take some time. Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for State opposed the suspension application and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the fact that appellant is a lady aged 49 years and looking to the period of her custody but without commenting upon merits of the case, IA deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is directed that jail sentence of the appellant will remain under suspension subject to verification that amount of fine has been deposited, on appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court for her appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 22nd December, 2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed by the Office in this regard till disposal of the appeal.

Aforesaid IA stands closed.

Certified copy as per rules.

                            (ROHIT ARYA)                                   (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                               JUDGE                                                JUDGE

                          MKB




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/14/2023
5:30:24 PM