Satyaveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13662 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satyaveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 9089 of 2022
                                               (SATYAVEER Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 10-05-2024
                                Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Advocate for appellant.

                                Ms. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard o n I.A.No.8294/2024, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on behalf of appellant - Satyaveer.

Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- with usual default stipulation vide judgment dated 10/09/2022 passed in ST No.268/2020 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura District Morena (M.P.).

As per prosecution story, allegation against present appellant is that he poured kerosene oil on his wife (deceased) and set her ablaze as a result of which she died.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The appellant has

already suffered jail incarceration for the period of 3 years and 8 months. He is a young person and not having any criminal antecedent. He is permanent resident of District - Morena. There is strong case in favour of the appellant. Final disposal of the appeal will take considerable long time. Under these circumstances, he prays that the application be allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till final disposal of the appeal.

P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting

that the trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record, convicted the appellant. Hence, he is not entitled to grant benefit of suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with due care.

So far as merits of the case is concerned, in police statement (Ex.P14), Dying Declaration (Ex.P17 & Ex.P24) & Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P13), she (deceased) has consistently stated that present appellant has poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze and as per the Post Mortem Report, cause of death is burn injuries.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly I.A.No.8294/2024 stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.

                             (VIVEK RUSIA)                                     (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                                JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

                          (Dubey)