Parusram Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20413 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Parusram Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2023

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                     1
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                              AT JABALPUR
                              CRA No. 8146 of 2022
                    (PARUSRAM BAIGA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 04-12-2023
       Shri Prakhar Naveriya - Advocate for the appellant.

       Shri Purushottam Soni - Panel Lawyer for the State.

       Reserved on        : 30.11.2023
       Pronounced on : 04.12.2023

       Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.

       Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
                                         ORDER

Heard on admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A No.17357/2022, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and R.I. for 6

months with fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and pray for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

This application for suspension of sentence is argued on the ground that

deceased was not the married wife of appellant and he never instigated the deceased to commit suicide. For this, the counsel for appellant has relied upon the citations of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another (1994) 1 SCC 73 and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 holding the legal principle that even if a person is held guilty of Section 498-A of IPC he should not necessarily be held to be guilty under Section 306 of IPC on the basis of same evidence. There must be a reasonable certainty in the evidence of instigation and degree of proof required in criminal cases needs to be beyond reasonable doubt standard.

Having considered the facts of the case in this legal backdrop, the

evidence reveals that the appellant was in live-in relationship with the deceased and it is established that he was last seen in the preceding evening with the deceased and the dead body of deceased was found next morning. The post- mortem report reveals that there were injury marks on the body of deceased and that were of such nature and on such body parts which cannot be claimed to have been self-inflicted.

The opinion of team of doctors, which conducted the post-mortem was that during the lifetime of deceased, she was subjected to sexual harassment. It was opined by the team that deceased died on consumption of poison and these injuries were 2-3 days old prior to the incident. The facts established through evidence reflect that the deceased was being physically and mentally tortured by appellant and was left with no option except to end her life.

Therefore, going by the principle laid down in the judgment of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, this court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Date: 2023.12.04 19:45:11 +05'30'