Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10106 OF 2022
(Laxminarayan and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 27.02.2024
Mr. Manish Yadav, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan, counsel for the
respondent/State.
_____________________________________________________
Heard on IA No.15316 of 2022 which is an application
under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay
in filing the appeal. The delay is of eleven days.
Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application
and in absence of any opposition, the same is allowed. Delay in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, IA No.15316 of
2022 stands disposed of.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Record has been received.
Also heard on IA No.16523 of 2023 which is first
application filed under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, on behalf of appellant No.3 - Deepa W/o Shri
Laxminarayan who has been convicted by Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, District - Dhar (MP) in Session Trial No.73/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10106 OF 2022
(Laxminarayan and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
vide judgment dated 25.08.2022 and has been sentenced him as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
Amount lieu of fine
302/34 IPC Life Rs.1000/- 03 months RI
Imprisonment
Counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence.
He submits that trial court has passed the impugned judgment
whic h is erroneous on law and facts on record. The appellant is in
jail since more than four years and her five year old child is
currently resides in prison along with her which is adversely
affected her child's health. He also submits that there are so many
contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. The
husband of the deceased was declared hostile and prosecution has
produced important witness Executive Magistrate Dinesh Sonartia
who has not taken the certificate of doctor before taking dying
declaration of the deceased that the deceased was fit for giving the
statement or not ? The final disposal of the appeal is likely to take
sufficient long time. Hence, prays for suspension of sentence and
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10106 OF 2022
(Laxminarayan and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
grant of bail to the appellant No.3.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the application and prays for its rejection.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it was found that the case was based on dying declaration
and dying declaration was taken by Dinesh Sonartia (PW/10) and
Doctor Rahul Sisodiya (PW/11) has given the fitness certificate
and hence considering the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and
considering other facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the
appellant No.3 Accordingly, the suspension application - IA
No.16523 of 2023 stands rejected.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
ARUN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f0
1804c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,
NAIR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD
8FF22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B7682
3F270F7, cn=ARUN NAIR
Date: 2024.02.28 19:23:07 +05'30'
