Madhya Pradesh High Court
Susheela Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2014
1
Cr.Appeal No.39/2006
Susheela Bai State of M.P.
26.8.2014
Shri Arun Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Akshat Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.16562/2014, appellant's application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail as she has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-.
Appellant's counsel after taking us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution available on the record argued that the impugned conviction being contrary to the available evidence is not sustainable under the law. In continuation, he said that there is no eye witness account in the matter and as per Jagat Singh (P.W.6), the father of the appellant, the deceased was not sleeping alongwith the appellant. He was in some other room while the appellant was sleeping with her daughter namely Hariwati and in such premise, on proper appreciation of the evidence, it could not be assumed that the appellant has caused the alleged fatal injury to Amar Singh. He also said that in the available circumstances, on proper appreciation of evidence, this possibility could not be ruled out that the alleged injury was caused by some other person or in 2 Cr.Appeal No.39/2006 Susheela Bai State of M.P. any case, either by earlier husband Ramlal or the aforesaid witness Jagat Singh (P.W.6). In continuation he also said that taking into consideration, the appellant has suffered nearabout 12 years in jail out of the awarded jail sentence and prayed that by allowing the I.A., the appellant be extended the benefit of bail.
Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State counsel saying that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed on the basis of the available evidence, it could be inferred that the appellant was only the person who had caused fatal injury to the deceased. He also said that mere on account of the alleged lodgment of the appellant in jail, she does not deserve for suspension of her remaining jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of the I.A. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the record, taking into consideration the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution especially deposition of Jagat Singh (P.W.6), in which he categorically stated that the deceased was in the separate room while the appellant was in some other room with her daughter and such witness alongwith his wife was in some other room, so in such premise there were so many persons in such house and the probability in the matter 3 Cr.Appeal No.39/2006 Susheela Bai State of M.P. as argued by the appellant's counsel prima face could not be ruled out at this stage. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the I.A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.
It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, appellant Susheela Bai shall be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindori firstly on 15.12.2014 and on such other dates which are fixed by such Court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (Subhash Kakade)
JUDGE JUDGE
C.