Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchhedi Lal Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 1 March, 2016
CRA-390-2015
(KANCHHEDI LAL PARIHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.)
01-03-2016
Shri T.C. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri RBS Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Subsequent to earlier date, along-with an affidavit some documents relating to children of the appellant No.4 are placed on record. After perusing the same are taken on record.
Heard on IA 168/2016, which is second repeat application on behalf of appellant No.4- Sushila W/o. Late Shri Ganpati Singh Khangar for suspension of her remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as her earlier application filed in this regard, was dismissed for want of prosecution i.e. IA 10248/2015. Accordingly, no such application has been considered and adjudicated on merits till date.
Appellants counsel after taking us through the record of the trial Court along-with the impugned judgment, the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the exhibited documents available with the charge- sheet, argued that mere perusal of the First Information Report which was registered during the course of enquiry of merg intimation, it is apparent that name of the present appellant No.4 while giving description regarding her alleged act in the incident has not been mentioned in any manner, whereas the names of other co-convicted accused have been specifically stated in such FIR, which was registered during the course of enquiry of inquest report. In continuation, he said that subsequently this appellant No.4 has been implicated by recording the interrogatory statement of some witnesses under false pretext. He further stated that during trial this appellant was remained on bail. In addition to the aforesaid argument, the case is also argued on the ground that this appellant is having four children out of them one elder son has passed away and marriage of one elder daughter has been solemnized. Now, Shivani and Mohit, one daughter and one son, aged about 13 years and 10 years respectively, are residing at present with the nephew of this appellant, but he being 19 years of age, it is not possible for him to look after them and in absence of mother- appellant No.4, the welfare of aforesaid minor children is not possible outside the jail and in absence of appellant No.4 the future of aforesaid minor children may be destroyed. So, considering the ground of welfare of minor children by adopting a lenient view this appellant be released on bail to look after such children and prayed for suspension of her remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, by allowing the IA. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State Counsel, saying that looking to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed with the assistance of present appellant- the wife of the deceased Ganpat Singh Khangar by her parental family- the co- convicted accused, for which sufficient evidence is available on record, this appellant does not deserve for suspension of her remaining jail sentence. In response of some query of the Court, after perusing the FIR the State Counsel fairly submitted that name of the present appellant was not stated in the First Information Report when it was lodged but subsequent to investigation on availability of evidence this appellant was implicated in the matter and prayed for dismissal of IA. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the record of the trial Court along-with the impugned judgment, taking into consideration that the name of present appellant was not mentioned at initial stage after holding the enquiry of merg intimation in the First information Report while the names of other co- convicted accused were categorically stated in the First Information Report, so also the circumstance that one minor son and one minor daughter of the appellant No.4, after death of her husband- deceased, are also dependent on her and the appellant being inside the jail, facing the awarded jail sentence, no competent person is outside the jail to look after the welfare and future of the aforesaid minor children whose names are also stated in the ration card, copy of which has been placed in the record, so also in spite of availability of some evidence against appellant No.4, only for welfare of her aforesaid two minor children and also in view of the factum that her name has not been stated in the FIR, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the IA is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.4-Sushila is hereby suspended. It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rupees one lac along-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, appellant No.4-Sushila shall be released on bail, with a further direction that she shall remain present in the Registry of this Court firstly on 16/12/2016, so also on all other dates as are fixed by the Office in this regard, till disposal of this appeal.
Certified copy.
(U.C. MAHESHWARI) (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE