Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-3242-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3242 of 2024
(JITENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 30-01-2025
Shri Saurabh Singh Rajput - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.6286/2024 first application under section 389(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, filed by the appellants No.2 &
3/accused, in which a prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence and
fine sentence and to grant bail to Appellant No.2- (Devkabai) and Appellant
No.3 (Shyamu @ Shyama), who are mother-in-law and father-in- law of
deceased.
2. Appellants herein being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2024 passed in Sessions Trial
No.136/2020 by the First Additional Judge, Khandwa, whereby appellants
were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 R/w 34 of
IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life time each
and fine of Rs.1,000/- each was imposed, with default stipulations.
3. As per prosecution story, on 02.04.2020 deceased- Smt. Rajni got
burn due to which she died on 04.05.2020 at M.Y. Hospital, Khandwa. Merg
No.16/2020 under Section 174 was registered. Merg statements of the family
member were recorded, in which it came out that deceased-Rajani was
married to Jitendra. Accused-Jitendra and the present applicants demanded
dowry and used to mentally & physically torture her and for same cause on
2 CRA-3242-2024
02.04.2020 all three accuse conspired and lock her in a room and after
beating her with iron rod accused-Jitendra poured kerosene oil on her and
burnt her by use of a matchstick. Chargesheet was filed and after trial
accused have been convicted.
4. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that this appeal is of
year 2024. Early hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future.
Appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no eye witness
indicating direct involvement of applicants. On above grounds, it is prayed
that remaining jail sentence of appellants be suspended.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for suspension of sentence.
6. Considered the argument. Perused the record. As per statement of
PW/1-Umabai (mother of the deceased), accused/applicants was demanding
Rs.7,000/- and when they were unable to pay, they used to mentally and
physically harass her daughter by beating her. In Paras 6 & 7 of cross-
examination, she stated that daughter was married to Jitendra about 10 years
ago and she had three children and in last ten years they never complained
against the accused persons. She also stated in cross-examination that her
daughter was admitted in hospital for about one month but she did not say
anything before the Police. PW/2-Dropdibai stated that her sister (deceased)
told that accused persons have poured kerosine and burnt her.
7. PW/3- Premlal (father of deceased) stated that deceased was
daughter of his wife from her previous husband. In paragraph 11 of her cross
examination, he has stated that it is correct to say deceased - Smt. Rajni and
3 CRA-3242-2024
accused- Jitendra were living separately and father and mother of the
accused-Jitendra were living separately. PW/5 - Premlal (son of the
deceased) in his cross-examination in Para 7 stated that his family members
had stated that he has to depose against his grandfather, grandmother and
father. At the time of incident he was playing but when the fire was lit he had
gone off to sleep and that he has stated all facts, as has been told to them by
his Nana and Nani (grandfather & grandmother).
8. PW/18-Rakesh Pendre (SDOP) has stated that during course of
investigation, on 13.05.2020 from the house of the deceased, he received
burnt clothes, empty plastic cane of kerosene etc. On 26.05.2020 merg
statements were recorded and he has lodged FIR (Ex.P/14) on 01.07.2020. In
cross-examination he stated that he did not talk to the concerned Doctor in
this case and very categorially stated that till deceased was live, he never met
and enquired from her about the incident.
9. Prima facie, having regard to over all evidence available on record
and facts of the case, including custody period but without expressing any
opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence
of the appellants. Accordingly, I.A. No.6286/2024 is allowed.
10. Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited,
the remaining jail sentence of the Appellant No.2 (Devkabai) and Appellant
No.3 (Shyamu @ Shyama) are hereby suspended and it is directed that the
appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
4 CRA-3242-2024
appear before the concerning trial court on 01.04.2025 and also on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
11. List the case for final hearing in due course.
12. C. c. as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
