Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nannulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1231 of 2015
(NANNULAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 15-05-2024
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri G S Chouhan, learned Government Advocate.
Heard on I.A. No.2353/2024 under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of execution of sentence of appellant/accused Nadanbai wife of
Nannulal and enlargement on bail.
2. The appellant Nadanbai has been convicted under Section 302 read
with section 34 of IPCF and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation in Sessions Case No.60/2014 by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur vide judgment dated
29.07.2015.
3. As per prosecution story, on 21.01.2014 at about 10:30 AM in Village
Napaniya Khurd, the appellant Nadanbai alongwith Girdhari, Jitendra, Parwati
Bai caught hold Anarbai (deceased) and Nannulal inflicted the injuries to her by
means of Axe due to which Anarbai succumbed, regarding which, a Crime
No.18/2014 was registered at Police Station Awantipur- Badoniya, District
Shajapur and total five persons were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 149,
307 and 302 of IPC.
4. The Trial Court acquitted the Girdhari, Jitendra and Parwati Bai and
convicted the appellant Nadanbai and Nannulal for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of IPC.
5. This application has been preferred on the ground that the appellant is
a woman and permanent resident of District Shajapur. The prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 16-05-
2024 19:06:02
2
witnesses have applied the method of pick and chose. Eye witness Satish (PW-
4) has testified against the Dehati Nalish and First Information Report. The
conviction of the appellant is on the basis of statement of Satish (PW-4)
whereas his statement has not supported the prosecution case in respect of
Girdhari, Jitendra and Parwati Bai and Trial Court has acquitted them. It is
further submitted that the appellant was extended the benefit of bail during the
Trial and she did not misuse the liberty so granted to her. It is further submitted
that the appellant has undergone sufficient period of sentence.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer vide
document No.2771/2024 on the ground that the eye witness Satish (PW-4) and
Kanhaiya (PW-10) have specifically proved the role of the appellant in the
offence and the statement of Satish (PW-4) and Kanhaiya (PW-10) have been
corroborated by Kailashchandra (PW-3) and Rambaskh (PW-5).
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record.
8. The involvement of the Nadanbai is based on statement of eye witness
Satish (PW-4) aged 14 years. The Satish (PW-4) has not supported the case of
prosecution regarding involvement of Girdhari, Jitendra and Parwati Bai who
caught hold the Anarbai alongwith Nadanbai. The appellant has undergone 9
years of sentence.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits
of the case, we are inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant
Nadanbai. Accordingly, I.A. No.2353/2024 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) with solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the execution of jail
sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
disposal of this appeal for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
11.11.2024 and thereafter on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the
Registry in this regard.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
