Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asharam vs State Of M.P. on 21 June, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 759 of 2011
(ASHARAM AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 21-06-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri P.S. Raguvanshi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA Nos. 6041/2023 and 6046/2023 which are 9th and 5th
applications filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C on behalf of appellant No.4
Maan Singh and appellant No.3 Charan Singh respectively, seeking suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant Nos.4 Maan Singh and appellant No.3 - Charan Singh stand
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced
to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.9.2011 passed in Special Case
No.67/2010.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of aforesaid IAs are to the effect that
deceased-Sarita was the daughter of complainant-Shobharam. Her marriage was
solemnized with co-accused Ran Singh on 25/4/2006. Accused persons,
namely, Asharam is her father-in-law, Sridevi is her mother-in-law and present
appellants no.3 and 4 Charan Singh and Maansingh are her brother-in-law (Jeth).
Deceased-Sarita lived with her in-laws in village Akaun.
A s per prosecution story, deceased-Sarita was mentally tortured with
demand of dowry in the form of motorcycle, gold ring, chain and Rs.50,000/-
cash. On demand not being met, she was dragged out of the house in the year
2008. However, after assurance that there shall no such recurrence of demand,
she was allowed to be taken back by her husband Ran Singh to her in-laws
house on 27/4/2009. However, on the following day, when the father of the
deceased, namely, Shobharam went to the village Akaun in the house of the
accused persons, the deceased-Sarita was lying in the courtyard in a burnt state.
She was rushed to the hospital. Despite treatment, she could not survive and
died an unnatural death. On aforesaid FIR, investigation started, challan was put
up and after collection of evidence, the Sessions Court convicted appellants
and sentenced as aforesaid.
Shri Goswami, learned counsel for appellants at the first instance fairly
submitted that he does not intend to press the applications on merits, but only
on the ground of long jail incarceration as against the jail sentence awarded to
appellants. As per the certificate issued from the office of Central Jail, Gwalior
dated 20/3/2023, appellants no.3 and 4, namely, Charan Singh and Maansingh
are stated to have undergone jail sentence of 11 years, 9 months and 14 days
and with remission, 16 years, 6 months and 08 days as on 20/3/2023.
Per contra, Shri Raghuvanshi learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State opposes the applications supporting the impugned judgment
with submission that in the dying declaration, Ex.P/10, deceased-Sarita has
specifically stated that the present appellants had caught hold of her hands and
after spreading kerosene oil, her in-laws had set her ablaze, therefore, no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.
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 facts and circumstances of the case, date of
the incident and period of incarceration indicated above, the appellants are held
entitled for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, we allow I.A.Nos. 6041/2023 and 6046/2023 and it is
directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.3-Charan Singh and appellant
No.4-Maansingh shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal
and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only) each with one
solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.
Appellants are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on
14/8/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IAs stand allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.As. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2023.06.22
10:02:07 +05'30'
