Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 666 of 2024
(BALRAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-05-2024
Ms. Sonali Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri J.K. Lodhi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.7916 of 2024, this is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant
No.1 Balram & appellant No.3 Rajni, pending the appeal.
Appellants alongwith co-accused have been convicted for commission of
offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and each of them have been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations
vide judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed in ST No.- 49/2021 (State of M.P. vs.
Balram and others) by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rahli, Sagar (M.P.).
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant have been
erroneously convicted by learned trial Court as it has not properly appreciated
the evidence on record. It is submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses is
full of omissions and contradictions and such omissions and contradictions
have not been considered in right perspective by the learned trial Court. Learned
counsel for the appellants has referred the evidence of parents of the deceased;
father of the deceased Kailash (P.W.-3), mother of the deceased Maya (P.W.-4)
and brother of the deceased Ashish (P.W.-5) and has submitted that parents &
brother of the deceased in their evidence have categorically deposed that their
daughter/sister was suffering from stomach ache and due to that, she has
committed suicide. It is further submitted that witnesses Dulichand (P.W.-1) &
Rajesh (P.W.-2) who are the neighbours have not supported the prosecution
story and have turned hostile. Naib Tahsildar Princy Jain (P.W.-6) who had
recorded dying declaration (Exhibit-P/11) & had proved it, has clearly deposed
that deceased before her death has stated that mother-in-law had told her that "if
she is the daughter of their real parents, she would immolate herself". Deceased
had not stated anything against appellants Balram (husband) & Rajni (sister-in-
law) except that appellant Rajni (sister-in-law of the deceased) was present at
the time of incident & was having some quarrel with her. It is also submitted
that appellants have fair chances to succeed in appeal. There is no possibility of
coming of this appeal for hearing in near future. Therefore, it is prayed that
custodial jail sentence of the appellants may be suspended and they may be
released on bail, pending the appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants.
I have gone through the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses and
also the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/11).
Having taken into consideration the evidence of witnesses & dying
declaration and material available on record, I deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellants, pending the appeal. Consequently, I.A.
No.7916 of 2024 is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1
Balram and appellant No.3 Rajni is hereby suspended subject to depositing
the entire fine amount, if not already deposited. It is directed that the appellants
be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear
before the trial Court on 22.10.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be
fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
