Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulayam @ Bhagwandas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9601 of 2022
(MULAYAM @ BHAGWANDAS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 19-01-2023
Shri Vishal Daniel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ashish Kol - Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on I.A.No.22310/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No. 5
Vebi @ Devi pending the appeal.
T he appellant No.5 and other co-appellants have been convicted for
commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC and have been sentenced
to R.I. for 8 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation by the learned
II Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari (MP) vide judgment dated 07.09.2022
passed in ST No. 60/2020 ( State of MP Vs. Mulayam @ Bhagwandas and
others).
Learned counsel for the appellant No.5 has submitted that appellant No.5
has not committed any offence. She has been falsely implicated. She has been
wrongly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as it has not
properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that
in this case, deceased died on 27.07.2020, prior to that on 05.7.2020 deceased
had lost her father with whom she was very much attached. Due to sudden and
untimely demise of father, she was under depression and under that depression
she has committed suicide. In this regrd, he has referred the cross examination
of the brother of the deceased. It is submitted that appellant No. 5 is the
mother-in-law of the deceased. She has nothing to do with the commission of
offence as the allegations made in this case are omnibus and general in nature.
No specific allegation had been made against her. It is further submitted that she
has fair chances to succeed in appeal. There is no possibility of coming of this
appeal for hearing in near future. Therefore, if her jail sentence is not
suspended, the purpose of filing this appeal would become futile.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant No. 5.
I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses on record and the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment. In this
case deceased who was married only six months ago with the co-appellant-
Ajay, died under mysterious circumstances in her matrimonial home. After her
death, father-in-law Mulayam @ Bhagwandas informed the police that she has
died due to fall from the roof. Post mortem was conducted and in post mortem
it was found that deceased has died due to asphyxia. Before trial Court it has
been consistent evidence of the brother, mother and other family members of
the deceased that just after marriage deceased was being subjected to cruelty
and was beaten in connection with demand of dowry. Having taken into
consideration the evidence of the witnesses including the post mortem report
and other material available on record. I am of the considered view that no case
for suspension of sentence of the appellant No. 5 is made out.
Therefore, I.A.No.22310/2022 an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 5
stands dismissed.
List the case for argument on admission after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
Digitally signed by
LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2023.01.20
10:54:46 +05'30'
