Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khemchand @ Khema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2014
MCRC.7911.2014. 1
Khemchand @ Khema Vs. State of M.P.
15.09.2014.
Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.204/2014, Police Station Cantt., District Guna, offences registered under Sections 294, 323, 327, 506, 302, 324, 307 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that earlier the case was registered under Sections 323, 294, 327, 506 of IPC and after the death of the deceased Savita Bai, offence under section 302 of IPC was added. Counsel further contends that after investigation, charge- sheet has already been filed on 25.07.2014 and trial will take considerable time in disposal of the case and applicant/accused has been in jail since 08.05.2014. Learned counsel further placing reliance upon the judgments in the case of Manjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 673, Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 877 and B.N. Kavatakar and anr. vs. State of Karnataka, 1994 SCC (Cri) 579 contends that as per recorded evidence more or less offence under section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicant/accused as the deceased-Savita Bai was the wife of the applicant/accused. There was no intention or MCRC.7911.2014. 2 motive on the part of the applicant/accused to kill his wife Savita Bai. The dispute arose between them suddenly on the applicant/ accused's demanding some money from the deceased for liquor. The deceased refused to give money to the accused. Further, Savita Bai died after one and half months and the cause of death of the deceased has been reported to be cardio respiratory failure due to head injury and its complications. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
As per prosecution story, on 18.04.2014, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Gajra Bai, mother of the deceased alleging that she received information through telephone that her daughter Savita Bai was lying in her home in unconscious condition. On reaching Village Piproda, she saw that her daughter was lying in her home in unconscious condition, thereafter, her daughter's aunt in law told that her husband Khemchand demanded money for consuming liquor. On refusal by her daughter to give the same to him, the applicant/accused Khemchand @ Khema beat her up by means of fists and hit over with a stone on her head. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 327, 506B of IPC were registered against the applicant/accused. After the death of the deceased Savita Bai, Section 302 of IPC was further added.
On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that the statement of the deceased Savita was not recorded during investigation. The report was lodged by the mother of the deceased Gajri Bai stating that her daughter Savita was beaten MCRC.7911.2014. 3 by the applicant/accused who is her husband but she was not eye witness of the incident, however, Chandrakanta Bai is the eyewitness of the alleged incident. As per her statement, the applicant/accused beat Savita Bai and inflicted injury on her head with a stone. The cause of death has been reported in the postmortem report by head injury. It is true that there was no motive or intention of the applicant/accused to kill her wife Savita and the dispute suddenly arose between them on demanding money by the applicant/accused from Savita for liquor and on her refusal, the applicant/accused assaulted her.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant/ accused till recording the statement of Chandrakanta who is the eyewitness of the case. As this is a family dispute case if the applicant/accused is released on bail, the accused might be able to win over the witnesses. Therefore, the application is rejected with the direction that after recording the statement of the said witness the applicant may file again application.
(M.K. Mudgal)
(ra/van) Judge