Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 169 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                                    1                               CRA-2913-2022
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                          CRA No. 2913 of 2022
                                                (DHARMENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 01-05-2025
                                 Shri Akash Rathi - learned counsel for the appellant.
                                 Shri Sudeep Bhargava - learned Dy. AG for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No. 1700/2025 which is second (repeat) application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant Dharmendra who stands convicted

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and default stipulations.

Vide order dated 17.11.2022, this Court has considered the application for suspension filed by appellant and rejected the same by a detailed and speaking order which is reproduced below :

"Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.4972/2022 which is the first application filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11/03/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda, District- Ujjain in S.T. No.74/2018 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- with further default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, marriage of deceased - Prembai was held with this appellant in the year 2014. She was kept well for about two years and thereafter appellant started assaulting her in a drunken condition. She had two

2 CRA-2913-2022 daughters aged 3 years and 7 months. In the year 2018 she came to her parental house alongwith two daughters. Appellant took back with an assurance to keep her well. After 6-7 days on 03/08/2018 near about 04:00 PM an information was given to (108) Ambulance that Prembai has been burnt by pouring Kerosene. She was taken to Primary Health Centre from where she was referred to Civil Hospital. She remained under treatment and succumb to 100% burnt injuries. On06/08/2018 autopsy report has confirmed the death due to burnt injuries. During the period of hospitalization a dying declaration was recorded, in which she has specifically alleged against this appellant that he poured the Kerosene, put her ablaze and at that time her father-in-law (Sasur) and brother-in-law (Jeth) were present. Police arrested all the three accused persons and filed a charge-sheet against them under Section 302/34 of IPC. Vide judgment dated 11/03/2022 appellant - Dharmendra being her husband convicted as indicated above and other two accused persons (Sasur and Jeth) have been acquitted, as they did not play any active role in the crime. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased committed suicide by pouring Kerosene. This appellant tried to save her as he also sustained the burn injuries on his hands. Initially the matter was reported to the police that she herself committed suicide. Dharmendra Dagar (PW/17) who has called (108) Ambulance has been examined in the Court but he has not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Therefore, in such circumstances the conviction is bad in law and appellant is entitled for grant of suspension of jail sentence.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the bail application submitting that the learned trial Court has duly considered the dying declaration which was recorded by the Tehsildar in presence of Doctor. She remained alive for 4 days and during that period she was mentally fit to give her statement(dying declaration), therefore, at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve her dying declaration.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased herself committed suicide and died due to burnt injuries sustained by her cannot be believed because incident took place at the house of appellant and there was lot of water available in the Kitchen as well as in the Bathroom and the appellant,

3 CRA-2913-2022 if wanted to save the deceased (his wife) could have used the water to extinguish fire, therefore, at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it not proper to grant the benefit of suspension of jail sentence to the appellant -Dharmendra.

Accordingly, IA No.4972/2022 stands dismissed."

All the grounds raised in this suspension application have already been considered by this Court on 17.11.2022 and rejected the application (I.A. No.4972 of 2022). There is no reason to re-consider it again.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 1700/2025 stands rejected.

                                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                                       (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                       JUDGE                                                JUDGE
                           VS