Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sangeeta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 9094 of 2018
(SANGEETA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-02-2023
Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, G.A. for respondent/State.
He a r d o n I.A. No.9372/2022, which is second application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the sole Appellant- Sangeeta.
Firs t I.A. No. 9552/2019, filed by the appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 16.01.2020.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.
2,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.06.2018 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain
(M.P.) in S.T. 472/2016.
As per prosecution case, during night on 05.06.2016, the appellant
committed murder to the deceased/her husband Mukesh Barmunda by hanging.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was addicted
to alcohol and used to beat up the appellant by drinking alcohol. Even on the
date of incident, the deceased had quarreled and assaulted the appellant after
drinking alcohol. The appellant has not committed offence and she has falsely
been implicated in the case. It cannot be ruled out that the deceased has
committed suicide by hanging. There is no direct evidence in the case and entire
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-02-2023
18:44:41
prosecution case depends upon circumstantial evidence. In alternate, it also
submitted that chain of circumstances are not completed and exclusive against
the appellant. She is a woman and is in custody since 24.06.2016. Final hearing
of this appeal is not possible in near future. Therefore, it is prayed that
remaining sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be released on
bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer of the appellant and prayed for rejection of application for suspension of
sentence.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering
the evidence available on record, coupled with the fact that final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in near future. Therefore, we are inclined to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.9372/2022, is allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, sole appellant- Sangeeta, shall be released on bail, on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 28.03.2023, and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 76/2023, which is application for
urgent hearing stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-02-2023
18:44:41
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-02-2023
18:44:41
