Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranglal Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2023
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1659 of 2023
(RANGLAL AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-05-2023
Shri Rajendra Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/ State
Matter is admitted for hearing.
Objection has been filed.
Record received.
Heard on I.A.No.2231/2023, which is first application filed by the
appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the final disposal of the
appeal would take long time. The appellant was on bail during the course of trial
and he is in judicial custody since the date of judgment i.e. 29.12.2022 passed
by the learned trial Court whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I and fine of
Rs.5,000/- along with default stipulation. He has been further convicted under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 02 years' R.I. and fine of
Rs.2,000/- along with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that on 10.11.2022, a
compromise application was filed before the trial Court but the trial Court did
not give the benefit of the application as the offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code was non-compoundable.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment
dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwam Rama
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
Shinde Gosai and others Vs. State of Gujarat wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has directed that in a matter of conviction under Section 392 read with
Section 397 of the I.P.C. in which the accused were sentenced to undergo 10
years R.I. and their appeal for suspension of sentence was not allowed, the
second application was also not allowed and when they made an application for
expeditious hearing of the case then it was disallowed on the ground that earlier
appeals were on the Board.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the application on the
ground that the appellant has committed heinous offence of burning his wife
with hot rod and, therefore, sentence should not be suspended.
As per the trial Court record, the appellant was under custody for a
period of 24 days before passing the date of judgment and after the date of
judgment i.e. 29.12.22 he is in custody.
As per the prosecution story, in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment,
the victim was married to the appellant. They had two children - one son aged
about 8 years and one daughter aged about 01 year. The accused started
doubting her character and started beating and demanding dowry and on
13.04.2019 again thrashed his wife and burnt her with hot iron rod by which she
sustained 10 burn injuries to the tune of 25-30 percent.
I have perused the statement of P.W.1 Aarti, who is wife of the appellant,
statement of P.W-2 Bhooribai, who is mother-in-law of the appellant and P.W-8
Dr. Vibha Jain. In cross-examination she has termed the injuries as superficial
i.e. not below the skin.
Looking to the overall circumstances of the case, without commenting on
the merits of the case and keeping in view the compromise statement of P.W.1
Signature Not Verified
Aarti, wife of the appellant in lower Court on 10.11.2022 and statement of Dr.
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
Vibha ( P.W.8), according to which the injuries were superficial in nature and
not below the skin and looking to the period of custody, I deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.
2231/2023, is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant Ranglal Ahirwar is hereby suspended
and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Harda on 7th of
August 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vikram
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 5/9/2023
11:41:57 AM
