Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj @ Vanshilal Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 843 of 2014
(SURAJ @ VANSHILAL JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-02-2024
Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla- Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.293 of 2024, sixth repeat application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant - Suraj @ Vanshilal Jatav. His earlier application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
08.07.2022 (IA.No.29660 of 2021).
Present appellant stood convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/- with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
17.12.2013 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge Ganj Basoda District
Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.104 of 2012.
The present appellant so far has undergone actual jail sentence of 12
years, 02 months and 21 days.
As per prosecution story, the offence of dowry demand related cruelty
was committed against the deceased on time to time and soon before her death
leading to sprinkling kerosene oil on her by her husband and relatives and set
her ablaze. The deceased had sustained grievous burn injuries. She was brought
to the hospital where during treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries
sustained by her. FIR was registered. Investigation was set in motion. Upon
completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of
evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed before the concerned CJM
from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court
on appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the
present appellant.
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. Present appellant has falsely
been implicated in the instant case. The appellant is brother-in-law of the
deceased. It is further submitted that present appellant has so far undergone
incarceration of 12 years, 02 months and 21 days. It is further submitted that the
appeal being of 2014 is not likely to be decided in the near future. On these
grounds, learned counsel submits that the present appellant may be extended
the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, 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.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the only fact that
present appellant so far has undergone incarceration of 12 years, 02 months and
21 days, and the appeal which is of the year 2014 is not likely to be decided in
the near future, we are of the view that present appellant is entitled to the benefit
of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.293 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant - Suraj @ Vanshilal Jatav directed to appear before the
Registry of this Court first on 30.05.2024 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ojha
