Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sou Moto The State Of M.P. vs Meena Pal on 7 January, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.64003/2021
Suo Motu the State of M.P. Vs. Meena Pal
Gwalior, Dated:07-01-2022
Shri N.K. Gupta, Public Prosecutor for applicant/State.
Shri V.K. Sahu, Advocate for respondent.
This application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has been registered on the suo motu exercise of power by this Court while deciding bail application of the co-accused Rishi Pal on 21/12/2021 in M.Cr.C. No.59431/2021.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present case in short are that the respondent and the co-accused were arrested in Crime No.584/2021 registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 307, 328, 323, 498-A, 34 of IPC.
3. During the course of arguments in bail application of the respondent, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent had not played any prominent role. There was no allegation that the respondent had administered poison to the complainant. This submission made by the counsel for the respondent was not opposed by the counsel for the State.
4. When the bail application of the co-accused Rishi Pal came up for hearing, then it was found that the so called dying declaration of the complainant was recorded. 2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.64003/2021 Suo Motu the State of M.P. Vs. Meena Pal
5. It is true that the complainant has survived and the so called dying declaration may not be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, but at the most it can be treated as a statement under Section 162 or 164 of Cr.P.C. The so called dying declaration reads as under:-
ek.kklUu dFku Tk;kjksX; fpfdRlky; fnukad% 28@07@2021 ICU ikW;tu Xokfy;j Time - 19%41 pm ejht fQygky lHkh c;ku gks'k esa gks& gk¡ nsus dh fLFkfr esa gS uke& o"kkZ iky] mez&26 ifr& fj"kh iky fuoklh& ek/ko uxj y{ehxat fr?kjk jksM O;olk;& x`fg.kh D;k gks x;k gS rqEgsa\ esjh lkl rFkk ifr us lqcg 7 cts eq>ls >xM+k fd;k fQj ifr us FkIiM+ ekjk rFkk nksuksa us esjk xyk idM+dj tgj dh 'kh'kh xys esa Mkydj tcnZLrh fiyk fn;k A rFkk esjs dku ds rFkk eaxylw= NqM+k fy;s rFkk ?kj ls fudky fn;kA tc eq>s gks'k vk;k rks eS gkWLihVy esa FkhA dgk¡ gh ?kVuk gS\ esjs ?kj ij tgk¡ ij esjh lkl rFkk ifr jgrs gSa ogk¡ ij tgj fiyk fn;k Fkk 'kknh dks fdrus lky gq;s gS\ fdrus cPps gSa\ 'kknh dks 12 lky gks x;s gSa rFkk cM+k yM+dk 11 lky dk yM+dh 7 lky dh rFkk NksVk yM+dk 5 lky dk gS Lor% dgk 'kknh ds ckn ls gh yxkrkj ifr vkSj lkl >xM+rs jgrs gSa ifr nk: ihrk gS og vkWVks pykrk gS rFkk ?kj x`gLFkh ds dkeksa dks ysdj >xM+k djrk gSA ,slk rks ugha gS fd rqe ifr vkSj lkl dks Q¡lkus ds fy, >wB cksy jgh gks\& ugha eSa ,slk D;ksa d:xha dqN vkSj dguk gS\& ugha dqN vkSj ugha dguk gSA dFku lquk LohdkjA vij rglhynkj Xokfy;j ejht c;ku nsrs le; iwjs le; gks'k esa FkkA
6. From the said so called dying declaration, it is clear that 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.64003/2021 Suo Motu the State of M.P. Vs. Meena Pal both, i.e. respondent and co-accused Rishi Pal, caught hold of the neck of the complainant and forcibly administered poison to her and also took out her ear rings and Mangalsutra and turned her out of the house. When she regained her consciousness, she found that she was in the hospital. Further, it is clear from the medical history, the complainant had given information to the doctor that her mother-in-law (respondent) and her husband (co-accused Rishi Pal) had forcibly administered (Jabardasti Ki). In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the complainant had stated that on 28/7/2021 at about 7 am she was in her house and at that time the respondent started beating her on the household issues. When she objected to it, then her husband also started beating her and thereafter, the respondent caught hold of her hands and her husband forcibly administered poison to her. Thereafter, she somehow managed to inform her father.
7. The father of the complainant has stated that on 28/7/2021 at about 7-7:30 in the morning he received a telephonic call from his daughter thereby informing him that her husband and respondent have administered poison and, therefore, they should come immediately. When the father, and brother of the complainant went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, they found that she 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.64003/2021 Suo Motu the State of M.P. Vs. Meena Pal was lying unconscious and they shifted her to Morar hospital.
8. Thus, it is clear that the respondent had played a prominent role in administering poison to the complainant, but unfortunately the Public Prosecutor appearing at the time of arguments of bail application of the respondent did not bring any fact to the notice of this Court.
9. So far as the role of the counsel for the respondent is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the counsel for the respondent was not in possession of the case diary, therefore, he was not aware of the entire allegations and evidence collected against the respondent, however, fairly conceded that it was obligatory on the part of the Public Prosecutor to point out the correct facts.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is a case where the material which is available in the case diary was not disclosed by the Public Prosecutor. The case diary was with the Public Prosecutor and he was supposed to assist the Court, but he did not do that.
12. Be that whatever it may.
13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent had succeeded in getting the bail by playing fraud on the Court and 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.64003/2021 Suo Motu the State of M.P. Vs. Meena Pal there are specific allegations that she played a prominent role in forcibly administering poison to her daughter-in-law/complainant.
14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 21/10/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.50599/2021 was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, as a consequence thereof, the said order cannot be allowed withstand.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 21/10/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.50599/2021 by which the respondent was granted bail, is hereby recalled.
16. The respondent is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court / Committal Court latest by 24th of January, 2022.
17. It is made clear that if the respondent fails to surrender before the Trial Court / Committal Court by 24 th of January, 2022, then the Trial Court / Committal Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the respondent.
18. With aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.01.07 16:43:31 +05'30'