Ram Krishna Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8152 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 612 of 2022 (RAM KRISHNA TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 29-05-2023 Shri Manish Datt- Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma,

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri A.S.Baghel- Government Advocate for the State. Dr.Rashmi Pathak with Shri Pranay Pal- Advocates for the objector through Video Conferencing.

Considered I.A.No.12412/2023, which is an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.

For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing during summer vacation for the suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, I.A.No.12412/2023 is disposed of. With the consent of both the parties, I.A.No.2092/2022 which is first application for suspension of sentence under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant/applicant-Ram Krishna Tiwari is taken up for hearing.

The sole appellant has been convicted by the judgment dated 10.1.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Chhattarpur in S.T.No.24/2007 for offences under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- and under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that appellant remained in custody near about 03 years. As per appellant he was married to the deceased-wife on 29.5.2004 and after about 02 years his wife committed suicide Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 30-05-2023 12:26:37

by hanging herself in matrimonial home on 20.8.2006. After registration of the case and investigation by the Police a charge-sheet was filed against the entire family. The prosecution examined as much as 17 witnesses. The appellant has examined 11 defence witnesses to bring out the falsity in the prosecution case. The entire case revolves around demand of dowry of Rs.60,000/- and alleged ill-treatment, which started three months after the marriage. The appellant has tried to demonstrate that deceased was severely depressed due to several diseases and was under treatment of various doctors. Nine days prior to the date of incident, she was taken to a Gynaecologist for treatment, and major treatment was planned. The serious abnormalities resulted in abortion. The

appellant had a joint bank account with his wife, in which, Rs.49,000/- was deposited. The trial Court has erroneously appreciated the entire facts and circumstances and wrongly convicted the appellant. Therefore, prayer has been made on the ground of misreading of evidence and wrong interpretation of law. The trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on statements of PW.8 (Badri Prasad Pouranik), PW.12 (Smt.Vimlesh Chaturvedi) and PW.15 (Pramod Sinha). The Article-A/3 has been erroneously relied upon by the trial Court, as it does not corelate with the suicide note. The allegations of assault and breaking of hand of the deceased are absolutely ill-founded and not supported by the medical evidence. In paragraph-91 of the judgment of the trial Court, it has come to the conclusion that money was not demanded and accordingly, acquitted the appellant from offences under section 306 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court has wrongly held that Articles-A/1, A/2 & A/3 are in same handwriting. It has not properly assessed the evidence of DW.11 (R.N.Sahu) and Exhibits-D-22 & D-23, which are treatment papers of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 30-05-2023 12:26:37

the deceased. It has also been argued by learned counsel that final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time to conclude. Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.

On the other hand, Dr.Rashmi Pathak and Shri Pranay Pal have strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and prayed for adjournment. The prayer for adjournment by the objector stands rejected. However, their objection to suspension of sentence is taken on record.

Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and supported the judgment passed by the trial Court.

We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per record, the appellant has remained in custody since 22.8.2006 to 01.10.2007 and from the date of judgment i.e. 10.1.2022 till date.

It is settled principle of law that very minute appreciation of the judgment of the trial Court is not required to be done at the stage of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence. But, it is suffice to say that on same facts the trial Court in paragraph-92 of the judgment acquitted the co-accused persons, namely, Ramashanker, Smt.Kapoori Devi, Seema alias Ramjanki and Smt.Sadhna and has given them benefit of doubt. One co-accused, namely, Pramod Kumar Choubey is stated to be absconding.

Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Delhi, (2000) 4 SCC 178 wherein the Apex Court during pendency of appeal in case of offences under sections 304-B of IPC and 498-A of IPC wherein the appellant was convicted for 07 years imprisonment and the accused had remained in custody for a period of more than 03 years and there Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 30-05-2023 12:26:37

was no possibility of early hearing of appeal had suspended the jail sentence of appellant. Similar principle has been laid down in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 13 SCC 526 and in the case of Baijnath and others Vs. State of M.P., (2017) 1 SCC 101 the acquittal is on merits under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the suicide note is stated to be under cloud and both the sides have given evidence to the hilt, we find it to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant/applicant without commenting on the final merits of the case.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of appellant-Ram Krishna Tiwari 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Trial Court, Chhaarpur on 16th 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.

Accordingly, I.A.No.2092/2022 is disposed of. List for final hearing in due course alongwith connected cases. Certified copy as per rules.

                                (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))                    (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                         V. JUDGE                                  V. JUDGE

                           RM




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 30-05-2023
12:26:37