Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 3 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 861 of 2015
(SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
Dated : 03-01-2023
Shri Amit Goswami- Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.3540 of 2022, which is fifth repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension
of sentence and grant of bail. All his earlier applications for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2015 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) in Sessions Trial
No.66/2014.
Appellant has so far undergone approximately 08 years' incarceration.
Appellant is the husband of deceased Preeti and the marriage was solemnized
on 26.02.2009
A s per prosecution story, deceased Preeti since had suffered burn
injuries, in the intervening night of 30.04.2013 and 01.05.2013 she was
hospitalized at JAH, Gwalior at about 03:10 am on 01.05.2013. Despite
treatment, she died on the same day. Marg intimation was registered at Marg
No.213/2013 and thereafter the FIR was registered Crime No.129/2013. It was
alleged that the appellant and his family members had been demanding dowry of
Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle, failure in fulfillment of the said demand led to the
aforesaid bride burning of deceased Preeti. Upon completion of investigation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/3/2023
6:28:09 PM
challan was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Datia
(M.P.). The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record and recording the statements of the material witnesses convicted and
sentenced the appellant as referred above, however, acquitted him and other co-
accused of the charges under Section 304B and 498A of IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act as the factum of demand of dowry was not found
proved.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated. The Sessions Court did not take into
consideration the relevant piece of evidence. The judgment is based on
surmises and conjecture, besides the same suffers from perversity of approach.
Further elaborating, learned counsel for the appellant submits that father and
mother of the deceased i.e. Ramjilal (PW-1) and Laxmi (PW-2) and other
witnesses have turned hostile and belied the story of prosecution. Even
otherwise, the appellant has already suffered incarceration of more than eight
years. Appeal is of the year 2015 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of
the appeal, therefore, this Court may consider case of the appellant for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, Smt. Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-
State opposed the prayer supporting the impugned judgment with the
submission that besides severe burn injuries, the deceased was also beaten up
as is evident from para 9 of the judgment. Thus, it is not only a case of bride
burning but also she suffered assaults. It is further submitted that appellant was
living separately with the deceased and therefore such injuries are directly
Signature Not Verified
attributable to the present appellant. Under such circumstances, no exception
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/3/2023
6:28:09 PM
can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence. However, she fairly
submits that there was no dying declaration and parents of the deceased and
other prosecution witnesses have belied the story of prosecution.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, but regard being had to the fact that appellant and the other co-accused
have already been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Section
304B and 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; appellant
has suffered incarceration of more than 08 years; appeal is of the year 2015; and
there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail
sentence.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail 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 subject to verification of
factum regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant is directed to appear before
the Registry of this Court on 15/03/2023 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
the appellant, the medical examination of the appellant be
conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that
he is having any symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential
follow up action or any further test required be undertaken
immediately. If not, appellant shall be released on bail in terms of
the conditions imposed in this order ;
(ii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of
bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/3/2023
6:28:09 PM
Accordingly, I.A. No.3540 of 2022 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) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/3/2023
6:28:09 PM
