Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Saroopi Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
1 CRA-9638-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9638 of 2023
(SMT SAROOPI LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 26-06-2025
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Sooraj Bhan Lodhi - Advocate for the complainant.
Per Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
Heard on I.A.No.17992 of 2023 , first application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant - Smt.
Saroopi.
2. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed in
S.T.No.32/2019 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, Distt.
Shivpuri, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and
201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default
stipulation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of facts of the case as
well as evidence on record. The case of prosecution hinges on circumstantial
evidence but the prosecution has utterly failed in proving any circumstance
against present appellant. Mere motive alone is not sufficient to prove the
guilt against present appellant. The statement of eye-witness Ramlakhan
(PW-4) has been recorded after three months, moreover this witness stated in
2 CRA-9638-2023
his cross examination that he has seen the incident from a distance of 1 km
and there was darkness and no source of light was there. Therefore, this
witness is not believable. Similarly, Surendra Singh (PW-5), who is the
witness of last seen, has also not intimated the police after the incident. His
police statement has also been recorded after three months. His testimony is
also not believable in the light of the facts revealed in his cross-examination.
The circumstance of mobile phone location is also not believable as it is not
proved by the prosecution that in whose name the SIM of mobile was
registered. It is vehemently argued on behalf of learned counsel for the
appellant that prosecution has utterly failed in this case to prove that death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature. There was ligature mark on the neck
of the deceased, therefore, the prosecution has come before the Court with
the story that deceased was strangulated and the alleged Safi has also been
recovered from the possession of appellant, but no forensic test has been
conducted to ascertain that such Safi has been used for strangulating the
deceased. Postmortem report reveals that deceased died due to shock arising
out of rupture of spleen, therefore, the cause of death is highly doubtful in
light of postmortem report which shows that rupture of spleen is the cause of
death. In this respect, learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards
various admissions in the statements of I.O. and doctor as well as the
statements of Ramlakhan (PW-4) and Surendra Singh (PW-5). It is also
submitted that case of present appellant is also not substantially different
from the case of other two co-accused who have been granted suspension of
sentence by this Court. Therefore, prayed for grant of suspension of sentence
3 CRA-9638-2023
to the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as attending facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
on merits of the case, I.A.No. 17992 of 2023 is hereby allowed. Subject to
depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) with a
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, the remaining jail sentence of appellant - Saroopi shall remain
suspended and she be released on bail. The appellant is further directed to
mark her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/09/2025 and on
subsequent dates given by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of
this appeal.
C.C. as per Rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ms/-
