Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 5 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 673 of 2015
(JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
Dated : 05-12-2023
Shri A.K. Jain - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.21214 of 2023, first application under Section 389
CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.1 - Jagdish for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Present appellant No.1 - Jagdish stands convicted under Section 302/34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-
with default stipulation vide judgement of conviction and order of sentenced
dated 28.05.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District
Morena in Sessions Trial No.260/2011.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant No.1 -
Jagdish has so far undergone jail sentence for 08 years, 11 months and 28 days
as on 1/12/2023.
As per prosecution story, deceased Seema was married to Prem Singh.
O n 10.10.2010, present appellant Jagdish and others took deceased Seema to
Civil Hospital, Ambah in burnt condition. After examination, Doctor found that
her face, chest, stomach, waist, back, both hands and legs were burnt and skin
was coming out. Smell of kerosene was also coming out of the body of the
deceased. Deceased was in semi unconscious state. She was 90 to 100% burnt.
Thereafter, her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate on
10/10/2020 in a fit mental condition wherein she stated that Pappu alias Shivdutt
(brother-in-law), present appellant Jagdish (brother-in-law) & Pushpa (sister-in-
law) had poured kerosene oil upon her and set her blaze. Thereafter, she passed
away on the same day. Accordingly, FIR was registered. After collection of
material evidence, challan was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions
Trial. The Sessions Court on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record
convicted and sentenced the present appellant as referred above.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that present appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Sessions
Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective.
The impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach being based on
surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that present appellant so far
has already undergone incarceration of 08 years, 11 months and 28 days as on
1/12/2023. That apart, similarly placed co-accused appellant No.3-Smt. Pushpa
has already extended the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court vide
order dated 01/11/2023 under similar facts and circumstances. It is further
submitted that the appeal being of 2015 is not likely to be decided in the near
future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the present appellant
may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, opposes the
application supporting the impugned judgment with submission that it is a case
of murder of an innocent lady and the trial Court after critical evaluation of the
evidence placed on record has rightly convicted the present appellant. Referring
to para 4 of the impugned judgment, it is further submitted that in her dying
declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate on the same day, she stated that
present appellant along with other co-accused persons poured kerosene oil on
her body and set her ablaze. As per most mortem report, deceased was 90%
burnt and death is caused by burn injuries. Hence, no exception can be taken in
the matter of grant of benefit of suspension of sentence, regard being had to the
nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court finds
substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for respondent/State and
is not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the present appellant on merits; however, regard being had to the only fact
that present appellant so far has already undergone incarceration of 8 years, 11
months and 28 days coupled with the fact that the appeal which is of the year
2015 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that
present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.21214/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.1 - Jagdish shall remain suspended and he
shall be released on bail, subject to verification of amount of fine being
deposited and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court. Appellant No.1 - Jagdish is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 12/02/2024 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed by Office in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
