Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kashibai Chadhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 12141 of 2023
(SMT. KASHIBAI CHADHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 30-11-2023
Shri Rajmani Singrol - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasanjeet Chatterjee - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Reserved on : 28.11.2023
Pronounced on : 30.11.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.22736/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 182, 193 and 211 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years,
S.I. for 6 months and S.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-. nil and Rs.500/-
respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of
appellant was suspended by the trial court till 04.10.2023 (as mentioned in the
application). Thereafter, this court vide order dated 04.10.2023 has extended
the period of bail of appellant from 04.10.2023 to 04.12.2023. The maximum jail
sentence of appellant is of two years and she was on bail during trial and did
not misuse the liberty granted to her and also the appeal would take
considerable time to conclude. She is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall
abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court.
Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be
considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and pray for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and
record of the court below.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that the appellant never named a person in the FIR, who committed
offence with her; she only reported the commission of offence of rape but she
could not identify the wrong doers; for political reasons, police introduced the
name of some persons without the knowledge of appellant; as she is an illiterate
lady, she could not find out whose names were mentioned in the FIR; she only
put thumb impression on the FIR; the FIR and the statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are not the documents which are prepared on oath and
the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are also not a part of
judicial trial, therefore appellant is wrongly convicted in the case.
I have considered all these arguments.
The appellant cannot disown the liability of giving false evidence in the
court. She put the thumb impression on the FIR and it is mentioned in the FIR
itself that the contents of it were read over to appellant and her husband. At that
time, no objection was raised. Further, the statements of appellant recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on oath and their relevance cannot
be challenged on the ground that they were not a part of judicial trial. The
statements recorded under this provision are the previous statements given on
oath and every previous statement has its sanctity in a judicial trial.
Having considered the fact that appellant resiled from her earlier
statements while giving testimony in Sessions Trial No.41/2017 and, thus, giving
false evidence affected the judicial administration, this court is not inclined to
allow suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.01 14:34:34 +05'30'
