Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manju @ Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2014
Criminal Appeal No. 1523/14
26.08.2014.
Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 10981/14, appellant's application for suspension of the jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A, 302 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for R.I. one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in the first count, for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in the second count, and for R.I. one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in the third and last count.
Appellant's counsel, after taking us through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment, by referring the depositions of examined witnesses of the village who were present at the time of the incident, said that on going through their testimonies, it is apparent that the alleged incident was an accidental fire in the home and thereafter the appellant had tried to save the life of the deceased by entering in the house in which he also sustained burn injuries on his person. In that respect, after medical examination, the MLC report of the appellant (Ex.D/7) was also prepared. According to which appellant had sustained burn injuries on various parts of his person while saving his wife. In continuation, he said that there is inconsistency between the deposition of the doctor and the expert of the forensic laboratory. According to doctor no smell of kerosene was found on the dead body of the deceased, while as per FSL report, on examination of the skin of the deceased, the kerosene was found on the same. On account of such inconsistency also, no prima facie inference could be drawn, at this stage, against the appellant when clinically on preparing the postmortem report the kerosene was not found on the body of the deceased. In continuation, he said that at the time of preparation of the memorandum of the dead body and spot map, the persons of the parental family of the deceased were very well present, but they did not make any complaint to the police while registering Dehati Marg intimation, and consequently the original Marg intimation was also registered at the police station, and from the first information report, it is apparent that in the course of the enquiry of the Marg, the offence was registered against the appellant, but it is apparent on record that on what basis the offence was registered those papers of the statements of the concerning witnesses recorded in the Marg enquiry were neither placed on record nor proved. He further submits that the first information report was also registered at a very belated stage near about after eight days. In continuation, he said that there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to draw the inference that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the appellant in her life time. With the aforesaid submissions, appellant's counsel has prayed to suspend the remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant by allowing this I.A. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, learned State counsel by referring the statements of some of the witnesses examined from the parental family of the deceased, argued that there is evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry of Rs.70,000/- and on that basis the inference for committing the cruelty towards the deceased could be drawn against the appellant. In continuation, he said that as per FSL report on examination of the skin of the deceased the kerosene was found on the same, so the FSL report is more reliable than the version stated by the doctor who carried out the postmortem and stated the version contrary to FSL report in his cross- examination. He further said that it is a case of pre- planned murder of the wife by the appellant/husband, and merely on account of sustaining some burn injuries on the hands of the appellant, no inference could be drawn that the appellant has not committed the alleged murder or the offence of cruelty on account of demand of dowry with the deceased in her life time, and prayed for dismissal of this I.A. Having heard, keeping in view the argument advanced, after perusing the record of the trial Court, taking into consideration the inter se inconsistency in between the depositions of the villagers and the persons examined from the parental family of the deceased, so also in between postmortem report and FSL report, as well as in the version of the doctor who carried out the postmortem and the expert of the FSL, so also keeping in view the circumstance that in the alleged incident according to Ex.D/7 the appellant had also sustained the burn injuries on his hand and other parts of his person, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the IA No. 10981/14 is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amounts, 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) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellant shall be released on bail with a further direction to remain present before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hatta, District-Damoh firstly on dated 03.12.2014 and on such other dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till final disposal of this appeal.
Judl.Magistrate Ist Class, Hatta, District-Damoh be intimated in this regard within 30 days.
The appellant is also directed to submit the certified copy of this order before learned Judl.Magistrate Ist Class, Hatta on or before the aforesaid date of appearance.
C.c.as per rules.
(U.C. Maheshwari) (Subhash Kakade)
Judge Judge.
jk.