Madhya Pradesh High Court
Biharilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 4253 of 2021
(BIHARILAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 25-10-2023
Ms. Sarita Kochhal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
I.A. No.9191/2023, second application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to appellant - Biharilal arising out of judgment dated 11.05.2018
delivered in S.T. No.258/2016, by Sessions Judge, Betul is taken up.
First bail application filed on behalf of appellant was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2022.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-
and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and
fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for appellant by taking this Court to the prosecution
story submits that as per the said story on 10.05.2016, deceased Ramrati Bai,
wife of appellant went with him to the forest but appellant alone came back
from the forest. Afterwards, dead body of Ramrati was found in the forest in a
burnt condition. Appellant was held guilty solely on the basis of last seen
theory. The conviction solely based on last seen theory is not safe. Moreso,
when PW-6 Siltabai in her cross-examination in para 4 and 6 categorically
deposed that she had not seen the appellant going with his wife. The story
regarding recovery is doubtful. It is highly improbable as to why appellant will
keep some ornaments of his wife on some place in the same forest. The
appellant remained in actual custody for more than 7 years. In absence of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 26-10-2023
11:20:48
clinching evidence, the possibility of affirmation of conviction by this Court is
bleak. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. In view of
recent judgment of Supreme Court in CRA No. 1560/2022, Smt. Suman Devi
vs State of Rajasthan, decided on 19.09.2022, conviction solely based on the
last seen evidence cannot get stamp of approval. She placed reliance on
following portion : -
"24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N. [(2009) 14 SCC 415],
while considering the case of dowry death, this Court observed
that the fact of living together is a strong circumstance but that
by alone in absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased
cannot be held to be conclusive proof, and there must be some
evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the husband and husband
alone was responsible therefor..."
Prayer is opposed by the other side on the basis of objection. However,
Shri Arvind Singh Government Advocate did not dispute the period of actual
custody of the appellant i.e. 7 years.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, period of custody and the
fact that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, without
expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper
to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.9191/2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant-Biharilal 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 trial Court Betul on 04th December, 2023 and also
on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 26-10-2023
11:20:48
pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
vkt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 26-10-2023
11:20:48
