Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 14 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 : 14-12-2023
Ms. Nikita Jain - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.21211 of 2023 , first application under Section 389
CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.2-Pappu alias Shivdutt for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Present appellant No.2-Pappu alias Shivdutt 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.2-
Pappu alias Shivdutt has so far undergone jail sentence for 08 years, 11 months
and 07 days as on 1/12/2023.
As per prosecution story, deceased Seema was married to Prem Singh.
O n 10.10.2010, present appellant Pappu a lia s Shivdutt 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 present appellant Pappu alias Shivdutt (brother-in-law),
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 07 days as on
1/12/2023. That apart, similarly placed co-accused appellant No.1 & 3 namely
Jagdish & Smt. Pushpa have already extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence by this Court vide orders dated 5/12/2023 & 01/11/2023 respectively
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 7 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.21211/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.2-Pappu alias Shivdutt 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.2-Pappu alias
Shivdutt is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
14/02/2024 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)
