Surendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21045 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Surendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                             1                                CRA-649-2015
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 649 of 2015
                                      (SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 02-08-2024
                                 Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwaha, learned Government Advocate for
                           the respondent/State.

Per Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke: -

Heard on I.A. No.5160/2024, first application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No.1-Surendra Singh.

Present appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 1.7.2015 passed in S.T. No.123/2014 by Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) The allegation against the present appellant, who is husband of deceased, is of inflicting cruelty upon the deceased to the extent of pouring kerosence oil on her and setting her ablaze. She was brought to the hospital

for medical treatment where during treatment, deceased died. The FIR was registered and investigation was set in motion. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as mentioned above.

2 CRA-649-2015 Learned counsel for appellants while taking exception to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the present appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that present appellant has so far undergone incarceration of about more than ten years. The appeal being of 2015 is not likely to be decided in the near future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no

exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the present appellant.

From perusal of the dying declaration, it is reflected that deceased specifically named present appellant to had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The incident took place within seven years of the marriage. Deceased died unnatural death.

In view of above, I.A. No.5160/2024 stands rejected.

                                     (VIVEK RUSIA)                           (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                         JUDGE                                        JUDGE


                           (aspr)