Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 CRA-1411-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1411-2021
(VIJAY SINGH MARAVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent
State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Record of the trial Court has already been received. Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
Also heard on I.A.No.3421/2021, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of sole appellant Vijay Singh Maravi.
Written objection has been filed on behalf of the State. As per the prosecution story, deceased Pooja and accused Vijay Singh Maravi had a live-in relationship and deceased was already a married woman having two daughters. They used to live in a rented house of Raja Nau. In the intervening night of 28.09.2019 and 29.09.2019, a quarrel had occurred between accused and deceased and for the said reason, accused appellant strangulated the neck of deceased with the help of a white scarf; whereon, deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, accused left the body of the deceased on the pit near the boundary wall of Madhuri Road and thrown the clothes of the deceased in the field of the crop. Police arrested the accused and memorandum Ex.P/1 was exhibited. On the memorandum given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a white scarf and 2 CRA-1411-2021 clothes of deceased were seized, vide Ex.P/2 and P/3. Five red bangles were also seized from the room of the deceased, vide Ex.P/7. The incident was informed to 100 dial of Police Station-Jamodi, District-Sidhi and on the basis of such information, Dehati Nalishi was registered as marg intimation no.74/09 (Ex.P/23). Unidentified dead body report was recorded under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. as Ex.P/28. Thereafter, deceased was identified. As per post-
mortem report, deceased had died due to strangulation and on the basis of aforesaid report, a charge-sheet was filed alleging offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant Vijay Singh Maravi and he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
In the night of the incident, deceased and accused had a quarrel between them, which lead to marpeet. The above incident has also been supported by prosecution witnesses namely Ankit Singh (PW-7) and Smt. Manju Sen (PW-12). Smt. Manju Sen (PW-12) has also supported the fact that the deceased and accused used to live in a live-in-relationship as husband and wife in her rented house. It has also been stated by Smt. Manju Sen (PW-
12) that deceased was already a married woman and her first husband was also alive having two daughters from him but deceased used to live with accused appellant Vijay Singh Maravi in a live-in-relationship as husband and wife.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence but on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a Scarf has been seized from his possession. In the night of the incident, a quarrel had occurred between the deceased and accused appellant, which is supported by prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when the quarrel had taken place between the accused and deceased, deceased Pooja had wielded a knife to the appellant accused and for his self-defence, appellant had strangulated the neck of the deceased with the help of a scarf, which is also corroborated by post-mortem report Ex.P/10. According to post-mortem report, doctor has 3 CRA-1411-2021 opined that the deceased had died due to homicidal strangulation.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the statements of prosecution witnesses as also the fact that the appellant had exceeded the limit of right to private defence, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3421/2021, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of sole appellant Vijay Singh Maravi is dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
S Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MP,
ou=GOVERNMENT, postalCode=482001,
HUSHMAT
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=0a38662ba9f7d0e1d01a31ef826fd079 09d79189cf13e12b359a812db654240c, serialNumber=9533071f0abdc0eeca6de7d745 7095b04092f02bac34508c6f60e0fd8b2dceea, HUSSAIN cn=S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2021.07.01 12:48:09 +05'30'