Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 June, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No.1023 of 2024
(SMT. MAYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10/06/2024
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for respondent / State.
Heard on IA Nos.9369/2024 and 2941/22024 filed urgent hearing and
urgent relief during vacation.
On due consideration, both the applications are allowed for the reasons
stated therein. Accordingly, IA No.9369/2024 and 2941/2024 stands disposed
off.
Also heard on IA No.2942/2024, which is first application filed under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant Smt. Maya who has been
convicted by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District - Neemuch
(MP) in ST No.37/2017 vide judgment dated 09/01/2024 and has been
sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment in lieu
of fine
302/120-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 05 months RI
201 IPC 07 years RI Rs.2,000/- 02 months RI
As per prosecution story, complainant Kamlesh Jat had gave an
information to the Police Station Jeeran that he along with Jawaharlal Jat was
going to Hanuman Temple. Suddenly near Kuiyya they noticed some bad smell
coming from the bushes where a dead body was lying, which was about 52-55
years of age. Thereafter, the police reached on the spot, searched the dead body
and on the basis of material received from the dead body, the brother of
deceased namely Umedh was contacted. They came along with the wife of
deceased Maya (present appellant) and identified the deceased as Pukhraj.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
(SMT. MAYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Thereafter, postmortem of Pukhraj was carried out. According to Umedh, the
deceased Pukhraj went along with his wife Maya and children and after some
time Maya alone returned without her husband Pukhraj and when he inquired
about the deceased she gave an unsatisfactory reply but later on she admitted
that with the help of accused persons she made a plan to commit murder of
deceased. Thereafter, the police arrested all the three accused persons.
Accordingly, FIR has been registered against present appellant Maya and other
co-accused persons. The police has called the call details of all the three accused
persons and the call locations from the prospective service providers. The police
has also recorded the statement of PW-9 who disclosed that he saw the accused
and deceased were going on two motorcycles and on the basis of statements of
Umedh and PW-9, the police has made these three accused persons as an
accused and arrested them. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the
matter. The police has tried to establish the charges on the basis of
circumstantial evidence and registered an FIR against the appellant and other
co-accused persons. PW-9 has turned hostile in the Court. CDR and mobile
location of all the accused and deceased has not been established. The police
has only established the calls made between Maya and Bhima, hence on the
basis of call records, the accused appellant was convicted.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence as the police has failed to collect any
concrete evidence to prove the charge of murder beyond
reasonable doubt. The call conversation between Maya and Bhima are not
sufficient to convict the appellants. He also submits that PW-9 has turned
hostile. On disclosure by appellant, blood stained stone was recovered. This
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
(SMT. MAYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
appeal is of year 2024 and the final conclusion of trial would take sufficiently
long time. He further submits that co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 04/07/2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9824/2019 has suspended the
jail sentence of co-accused Bhima in the similar circumstances. Hence, looking
to the parity also, he prays for grant of suspension of sentence to appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes
the prayer and prays for its rejection. However, he has fairly admitted that jail
sentence of co-accused has been suspended by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record with due care.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and also looking to the parity, the
application I.A.No.2942/2024 is hereby allowed. It is directed that substantive
jail sentence of appellant Maya shall be suspended and she be released on bail
subject to her depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial
Court for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/09/2024 and
on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE V. J U D G E
Anushree
