Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyoti Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10542 of 2019
(JYOTI BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-10-2023
Ms. Indu Pande -Advocate for appellant.
Shri Punit Shroti -Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.20119 of 2021, which is the third application filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Earlier two applications for
suspension of sentence have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Vide impugned judgment dated 15.10.2019 passed by the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Multai District Betul in S.T. No.45/2019, the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for life with fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.
As per prosecution, the present appellant being mother of the deceased
gave him poison because he was mentally retarded child. As per the
prosecution, another child i.e Shailendra (PW-2) has seen that her mother has
given poison to the deceased.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that the story of the prosecution is
a false story and appellant has been falsely implicated in the said offence. She
submits that as per defence taken before the court below the other family
members were not happy with the said boy because he was mentally retarded
and they were not accepting the same. Their behaviour with the present
appellant was not proper. She submitted that statements of the witnesses
recorded after three months and poison seized from the husband of the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
10:05:11 AM
appellant, that too after one month. The glass seized, which is said to have been
used by the present appellant for giving poison to the deceased was not sent for
F.S.L and as such no seizure was made from the present appellant. Learned
counsel for appellant further submits that present appellant being a lady and the
mother of deceased is in custody since 27.09.2018 and looking to the
surrounding circumstances, creates suspicion about the involvement of the
present appellant, therefore, the sentence awarded to present appellant may be
suspended and she may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has read over
the judgment of the court below and submits that finding given by the trial court
is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution
and as such the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of record and considering the surrounding circumstances, we are
inclined to consider and allow the application. Therefore, without commenting
anything on the merits of the case, I.A. No.20119 of 2021 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount (if not deposited)
by appellant as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2023
and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended and she shall be
released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other case.
Accordingly, I.A. No.20119 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
10:05:11 AM
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
tarun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/5/2023
10:05:11 AM
