Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banshilal vs State Of M.P. on 13 January, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4046 of 2021
(BANSHILAL AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 13-01-2023
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, learned counsel for appellant No.1
Banshilal s/o Dolaji.
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Advocate General / respondent.
Heard on IA No.11827/2022 , a repeat (SECOND) application under
Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Banshilal S/o Dolaji.
His earlier application (IA No.3728/2022) for suspension of sentence has
already been dismissed by this Court on 01.07.2022 as withdrawn, after arguing
at length.
The present appellant has been convicted by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh (MP) in Sessions Trial
No.2142/2020 vide judgment dated 28th June, 2021 under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
along with fine of Rs.20,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, the appellant
was directed to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the earlier occasion, he
could not draw the attention of this Court to some relevant facts namely, that
the sentence of appellant No.2 Sushila Bai W/o Banshilal (who happens to be
the wife of the present appellant No.1) has already been suspended by this
Court on 07.03.2022; and the case of the present appellant is akin to that of his
wife.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 15-01-2023
18:39:02
It is also submitted that appellant No.1 has been falsely implicated in the
case only on the basis of memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act; thus, deserves to be released on bail.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the
prayer; and it is submitted that no case for grant of suspension of sentence is
made out, as it has been positively proved by the prosecution that the poison
was administered in the food of the deceased Lakhan Lovewanshi and the tiffin
(lunch box) was given by the appellant to him, which has also been recovered
from the field of the deceased, in which the name of the present appellant
Banshilal as also his wife Sunita bai is inscribed.
It is also submitted that so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, her name
is Shushila Bai, but PW-1 Chain Singh, brother of the deceased, has stated that
Sushila Bai is also known as Sunita Bai, which has not been challenged by the
defence in the cross-examination of this witness; and thus, the aforesaid tiffin
(lunch box) clearly tie the appellant with the offence of murder.
It is also submitted that at the instance of the appellant, the poison which
was administered in the tiffin (lunch box) has also been recovered and which
has been found to be the same poison in the FSL report. Thus, it is submitted
that no case for interference is made out.
On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record,
this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents and is of the opinion that despite the fact that the sentence of the
present appellant’s wife (appellant No.2) has already been suspended by
this Court, no case for suspension of jail sentence is made out, looking to the
clear evidence available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Accordingly, IA No.11827/2022 is hereby dismissed.
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 15-01-2023
18:39:02
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
rcp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 15-01-2023
18:39:02
