Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sudha Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2022

Author: Sujoy Paul

Bench: Sujoy Paul

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 2961 of 2022 (SUDHA TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Dated : 14-09-2022 Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the State. Heard on I.A. No.5430 of 2022, which is the first application filed on behalf of the appellant - Sudha Tiwari for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T No.47/2020, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

As per prosecution story, appellant is a married women, there was a love affection between the appellant and the deceased Shatrughan Singh Chouhan. At the time of incident appellant was living on a rented house at North Karodia Tola, Sidhi. The deceased used to come in her rented house. On the date of incident the deceased had came in her rented house, there was a quarrel between them and the appellant had pushed the deceased, he fell on the ground and got unconscious. On seeing that deceased is not getting conscious on the next day, she poured petrol upon him and set him on fire.

On 16.01.2020, a dead body was recovered from the rented house of the appellant. As per the postmortem report and statement of Dr. Pankaj Tiwari Signature Not Verified SAN (PW/18), about 85% of the body of the deceased was burnt.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are so many 2 omissions and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses. She has not committed any offence. She was not a tenant of the house where dead body is found, tenant of the aforesaid house was another lady who share similar name with the appellant. There is no direct evidence in the case and entire case is depend on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not exclusive and complete against the appellant. Appellant is a lady aged about 58 years, she is in jail since 20.01.2020 and disposal of this appeal would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the custodial sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the application on the strength of written objections.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the same, we are of the considered opinion that there is sufficient evidence available against the present appellant. Thus, we are not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5430 of 2022 is dismissed. List for final hearing in due course.

                                  (SUJOY PAUL)                                 (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                     JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                                DevS




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2022.09.19 17:35:46 IST