Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munna @ Harendra Singh Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2351 of 2023
(MUNNA @ HARENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 19-12-2023
Shri Aakarshan Aditya and Shri Kapil Singhal- Advocates for
appellants.
Shri R.K. Awasthi- Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
Heard on IA No. 22861 of 2023, second repeat application under Section 389 of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.2- Manju Devi for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Her first application i.e. IA No. 5251 of 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23-06-2023.
Present appellant stood convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, under Section 304-B of IPC sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act sentenced to undergo two years' RI with a fine of Rs.2,500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-01-2023 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (MP) in Sessions Trial No.190 of 2016.
Appellant No.1 Munna alias Harendra Singh Rajawat and appellant No.2 Smt. Manju Devi are husband and wife. Deceased Soni Devi was the wife of co-convicted accused Deepak Singh Rajawat. Deepak Singh Rajawat is the nephew of appellants No. 1 and 2.
As per Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-7, lodged by appellant No.1, it was stated that on 28-10-2015, at around 07:00-08:00 in the morning, his son Ramhet Singh came to the field and informed that deceased Soni Devi has cut vein of her hand. He reached home and found that Soni Devi was in an unconscious state, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 21-12-2023 10:41:55 PM 2 however, she was breathing. Thereafter, he along with Deepak Singh brought Soni Devi to District Hospital, Bhind in a tempo where the doctor after medical check up, declared her to be dead. On marg intimation of appellant No.1, Police in-charge, Harjendra Singh Chauhan (PW-7) recorded Marg No.0/15 under Section 174 of CrPC. The Marg Enquiry was conducted by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police G.P.Shakya (PW-8), who during the course of Marg Enquiry, found that because of mental as well as physical harassment caused by the husband- accused Deepak Singh, mother-in-law Kunti Devi, uncle-in-law Munna alias Harendra Singh Rajawat, and aunt-in-law Manju Devi to Soni Devi in furtherance of demand of dowry pertaining to motorcycle etc., Soni Devi committed suicide by hanging herself. On the basis of Marg Enquiry, PS Bharoli registered FIR Ex.P-9 at Crime No.09 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, spot map Ex.P-10, seizure Ex.P4 pertaining to marriage card of deceased were prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused Deepak Singh Rajawat was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-12. After completion of investigation, declaring accused Kunti Devi, Munna alias Harendra Singh and Manju Devi to be absconding, challan was filed against all the four accused under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC before the Court of JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind on 25-07-2016 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial. The Sessions Court having discussed the evidence placed on record and upon its critical evaluation, rendered the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred above.
Shri Aakarshan Aditya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Signature Not Verified present appellant, while taking exception to the impugned judgment, contends Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 21-12-2023 10:41:55 PM 3 that there is a delay in registration of FIR after marg intimation. The judgment is farfetched as it suffers from perversity of approach. The present appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Even if the story of prosecution is accepted on its face value, it is a case of partial hanging based on medical evidence but the medical evidence has not been considered by the Trial Court. The appellant has already suffered incarceration of 11 months. On these premised submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State, supporting the judgment impugned, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants, by submitting that appellant No.1 has been accomplice in the crime which is writ at large inasmuch as contrary to the injuries found on the body of the deceased, as discussed in para 15 of the judgment, appellant No.1 while giving intimation of death, had made a false statement that the deceased was found unconscious due to cutting veins of hand. Appellant No.1 Munna alias Harendra Singh Rajawat deliberately concealed the fact of death by hanging, despite apparent ligature mark of neck of deceased. For ready reference and convenience, paragraph 15 of the judgment impugned is quoted below, which provides the description of injuries:-
pksV Ø-1%& e`frdk dh xnZu ij ,d ykbxspj ekdZ 29 x 2 lseh vkdkj dk xnZu ds pkjksa vksj vxz&Hkkx esa] ysfjaXl vkSj fpu ds chp esa Fkk;jksbM dkfVZyst ds mij gksdj] xnZu dh nksuks rjQ ls ihNs dh vksj frjNk o mij tkrs gq, Fkk] xnZu dh nkfguh rjQ dku ds uhps xBku dk fu'kku Fkk] fMlsD'ku djus ij bdkbZeksf'k'k iztsaV Fkh] ykbxspj ekdZ gkMZ ikpZeasV dh rjg MkdZ pkWdysV czkmu dyj fy;s gq, FkkA Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 21-12-2023 10:41:55 PM 4 pksV Ø-2%& ,d bUlkbTM ?kko 3x0-4 lseh dk] is'kh dh xgjkbZ rd cka;h dykbZ ds Hkhrjh Hkkx ij [kwu dk FkDdk fy;s gq, Fkk] tks fd e`R;q ds iwoZ 'kkiZ ,oa dfVax vkWCtsDV ls 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dkfjr gksuk izrhr gks jgk FkkA That apart, the conclusion of the Trial Court, in para 36, shows that it is the case of unnatural death of the deceased by hanging. There was no explanation forthcoming as regards unnatural death which occurred within five months and seventeen days of the marriage of deceased with accused- Deepak Singh Rajawat within confines of her matrimonial home. The conviction is based upon the cogent circumstantial evidence having support of statutory presumption of the law under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. In view of the analysis in the aforesaid paragraphs i.e. 34 to 37 of the judgment impugned, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case, regard being had to the fact that there is apparent contrast between the description of injuries in the Dehati Nalisi lodged by the appellant No.1 and the injuries found on the body of the deceased supported by medical evidence given by Dr.Devesh Sharma (PW-9) in postmortem report as discussed in para 15 of the judgment and the description of the sequence of event and analysis of evidence on record from para 34 to 41, we are of the considered view that prima facie no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Consequently, IA No. 22861 of 2023, stands rejected.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 21-12-2023 10:41:55 PM 5 (ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 21-12-2023
10:41:55 PM