Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devidas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-8784-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8784 of 2019
(DEVIDAS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-01-2025
Shri S.K.Meena, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sonal Gupta, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 15276/2024 which is first application under Section
389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.
1-Devidas who stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and six months RI with fine and default stipulations.
Vide order dated 23.02.2021, this Court has considered the application
for suspension filed by appellant No. 3-Tulsabai (mother of the deceased)
and rejected the same by a detailed and speaking order which is reproduced
below :
''Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/Tulsabai.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Submissions were made on I.A.No.7518/2021 .
This is an application for suspension of sentence to appellant No.3-
Tulsabai, who has been convicted as under:-
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine, if deposited
in lieu of fine
4 months
302/120-B IPC R.F. for life Rs. 1,000/-
additional R.I.
3 months
323 IPC 6 months R.I. Rs. 500/-
additional R.I.
The prosecution story is that the complainant and his wife
deceased/Sarlabai had entered into marriage alliance against the wishes
2 CRA-8784-2019
of family of deceased. Appellant is mother of the deceased. Appellant
and other co-accused were against such alliance. On 05/04/2018, when
the deceased had come to Village-Pansemal from Mumbai, the
appellant alongwith her husband and son (co-accused) hatched
conspiracy purusant to which the husband and son of the appellant
came to the house of the deceased and told her that her mother (the
present appellant) is serious and she wants to meet her. The deceased
(Sarlabai) and her husband (Pankaj-PW/2) thereafter accompanied the
co-accused in a vehicle and as the deceased entered into her house, she
was attacked by the appellant. Husband - Pankaj (PW/2) who is
complainant in this case also was assaulted by the appellant with a
Mogari. The deceased, fearing for her life rushed-out but was caught
hold by brother and father of the deceased; namely Hiralal and Devidas
respectively.
When the complainant tried to save his wife, Hiralal held him from
behind and Devidas chased Sarla. The complainant again tried to save
his wife but was assaulted by the appellant and in the meanwhile
Devidas gave blows on Sarla with a sharp object weapon (Koyta). In
such injuries Sarla succumbed on the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there are
exaggerations in the statement of Pankaj (PW/2), who has stated that
appellant had raised many blows on him with Mogari whereas there
are only two injuries on his person. Learned counsel has drawn
attention of the Court in para 69 of the judgment. He submitted that
appellant is in jail since last three years and all the injuries on the
deceased have been caused by sharp object for which the appellant is
not responsible and that there is no evidence to construe conspiracy
hatched by the appellant.
Learned Government Advocate for State was also heard, who has
vehemently opposes the application, pointing-out that it is a case of
honour killing and there is a clear evidence of hatching of conspiracy
by the appellant and other co-accused persons.
Submissions were considered and material available on record was
perused.
From the evidence of Pankaj (PW/2), it appears that he and his wife
(the deceased/Sarla) were induced to accompany the co-accused
persons on the pretext that appellant is on death bed and is wanting to
see her daughter (the deceased). This witness further has stated as to
the manner in which he and his wife were attacked by Mogari by the
appellant, when they entered the house. Mogari has been seized vide
Ex.P/23 from the appellant on the basis of her memorandum Ex.P/2.
The contradictions pointed-out by the learned counsel for the appellant
are of very trivial character. The whole sequel of events prima facie
point at conspiracy aimed at eliminating Sarla by the appellant and her
3 CRA-8784-2019
husband and son. Prima facie it does appear to be a case of honour
killing and committal of such offence by very own parents and brother
of the deceased takes the offence into another elevated level of
heinousness.
After due consideration and considering the rival submissions made by
the parties, we are of the considered opinion that appellant is not
entitled to be granted benefit of suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, IA No.7518/2021stands dismissed.''
Thereafter, the repeat application filed by Tulsabai has also been
rejected on 03.04.2024.
The present appellant No.1 - Devidas happens to be the father of
deceased-Sarlabai who had performed marriage against the wish of her
family. By way of conspiracy, appellant along with his son went to the
house of deceased to bring her home on the pretext that her mother-Tulsabai
was ill. Thereafter, all the three appellants committed murder of the
deceased. Therefore, the case of present appellant cannot be said to be on
better footing than that of appellant No.3-Tulsabai.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.1-Devidas
has completed more than 6 years of jail sentence.
However, considering the nature and gravity of offence, at this stage
we are not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant-Devidas.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 15276/2024 stands rejected.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
