[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dayashankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1058-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1058 of 2022
(DAYASHANKAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-01-2026
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.27165/2025, an application for amendment in
I.A. No.26256/2025.
For the reasons mentioned therein and as not opposed by the
learned Public Prosecutor, I.A. No.27165/2025 is allowed.
Let necessary corrections be carried out during the course of the
day.
Heard on I.A. No.26256/2025, which is the third application under
Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.5 Ramkali S/o
Shri Ramashankar Sahu.
The appellant No.5 is aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.12.2021
passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, District Singrauli,
Headquarters Waidhan (M.P.) in Sessions case No.1500091/2014,
whereby the appellant No.5 stands convicted for offence under Sections
304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a stipulation to undergo
additional R.I. for 3 months in default of payment of fine amount.
2 CRA-1058-2022
Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
it is evident from the evidence of PW-7 Dinesh Kumar Sahu that main
allegation of demand of dowry was on husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased. It is also pointed out that PW-9 Smt.
Roopmati is mother of the deceased. She has also stated that for a
demand of a diwan and a fridge, the victim was tortured. In paragraph 8
of her cross-examination, this witness admitted that when the Tehsildar
had recorded dying declaration of the victim, at that time she was
present. She also admitted that when the victim was giving her dying
declaration, she was at a distance of 2-3 hands. She further stated that
five persons were present when dying declaration of the victim was
being recorded including Tehsildar, two police personnel which she
corrected to be one, and the doctor besides a woman constable.
PW-2 Ajayraj Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Singrauli, admitted in
paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that mother of the victim was
present at the time of recording of statements, then corrected and said
that except for him and the doctor, nobody else was present. This witness
also admitted that when he had gone to record dying declaration of the
victim on 01.04.2014 vide Ex.P-5, at that time victim Sunita was
unconscious. He further admitted that he had not visited the hospital
after 01.04.2014 till 05.04.2014. He stated that on 4th or 5th April, police
personnel had visited him and stated that since victim Sunita was
conscious, asked him to record her statements.
3 CRA-1058-2022
It is pointed out that the prosecution was required to prove as to
when Sunita gained consciousness and her dying declaration was
recorded soon thereafter without giving any opportunity of being
tutored. In any case, main allegation is against husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Dayashankar, Ramgubal and
Sonmati, respectively. Against others, there are general and omnibus
allegations. There are good chances of success in the appeal for appellant
No.5. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the remaining jail sentence of
the appellant No.5 and to release her on bail.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State, in his turn, opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, so also looking to the fact that the appeal is going to take
considerable time for its disposal, without commenting on the merits of
the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.5 and to release
her on bail. I.A.No.26256/2025 is accordingly allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before the
trial Court on 30.03.2026 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the
4 CRA-1058-2022
trial Court, which shall not be more than two times in a year, the
execution of remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon appellant
No.5 Ramkali shall remain suspended and she shall be released on bail
till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.26256/2025 is allowed & disposed of.
List the case for final hearing in Part-B of the cause list as per its
turn and seniority.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
