Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 September, 2017
CRA-630-2015
(SMT. MAYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
15-09-2017
Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Smt. Uma Kushwah, Advocate for the complainant. I.A.No.6295/2017, second repeat application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of sole appellant is taken up and considered.
By the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2015 in S.T.No.268/2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra District Gwalior, the appellant stands convicted for offence punishable u/S. 302 of IPC for L.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. The appellant is found guilty of murder of seven years old Bholu @ Abhijeet who was stepson of the appellant. The prosecution story found proved by the trial Court, is that on 08.03.2013 at about 6:45 P.M., the complainant Raju on returning home called for his wife (appellant) and his son deceased Bholu. On receiving no response, the complainant in search reached the roof top where he saw the appellant standing near a drum full of water holding the deceased with his feet while his head was inside the water. The deceased was opined by doctor to have died due to drowning. The motive found proved by the trial Court is the appellant's desire to eliminate the deceased (son of the first wife of complainant Raju) from the line of succession to the property of complainant to ensure advantage to children of the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant was in an advanced stage of pregnancy when the incident took place.
The trial Court found the story of the prosecution to be credible but this court is of the view that considering the appellant being a woman presently aged about 30 years who appears to have acted more by impulse than intent having been driven by the strong and burning desire to make the future of her childern materially more secure and the fact that the appellant has suffered two years and seven months of incarceration as against life imprisonment awarded and further looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future, this court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant by way of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A.No.6295/2017 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, for appearance of the appellant before the concerned CJM on 11.12.2017 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him. In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M. then the said C.J.M. shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing her presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
C.c. as per rules.
(SHEEL NAGU) (ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE JUDGE