Madhya Pradesh High Court
Geetabai And 2 Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2016
1
Cri.A.No.868/2012
11/3/2016
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the
appellant No.3 Ritesh.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2053/2016, which is the third application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant No.3 Ritesh.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that although there are two dying declaration available on record namely Ex.D/5 and Ex.P/21. Ex.D/5 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 29.11.2009 immediately after the incident and it is fully recorded in accordance with the provisions of law; and it also fully exonerates the present appellant. Counsel urged that the deceased wife has categorically stated that the husband was not present at the time of the incident. By Ex.P/21, the second dying declaration, she has categorically stated that the husband had come into the kitchen and put out the fire. Besides, Counsel placed reliance on Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2007 2 SC 763, whereby the Apex Court has held that the demand of money is on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses and for purchase of things; then it cannot be held that it is for demand of dowry. And since the demand for a vehicle was made in the present case, the demand of dowry is not made out. Counsel further submitted that the appellant was in jail since 14/7/2012 and hence he prayed that the application be allowed. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/State has drawn attention to this Court regarding paragraphs 32 to 39 of the impugned judgment whereby P.W.9 Harpalsingh has deposed before the Court that he was the neighbour and thus the independent witness. He had arrived upon the scene upon hearing the shouts and co-accused Chetan was standing on the doorway and when he had gone inside appellant accused Ritesh had told that his wife was lying on half burned condition because of bursting of the gas cylinder. He had queried Ritesh that there was a smell of kerosene and there was to be shouts and noise of quarrel coming from the house. Thus there is clear, cogent evidence regarding ill-treatment and pouring of 3 kerosene for setting the deceased ablaze. And both the dying declarations completely indicated that kerosene was poured by the other co-accused Chetan and mother-in-law Geetabai and there is not doubt regarding the implication of the present appellant also. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
On considering the above submissions, looking to the nature of the offence and gravity of the offence and nature of the allegation regarding the way in which the murder had been committed, we find that there is no merit in the application for grant of suspension of jail sentence. The application is, therefore, dismissed as being bereft of merit.
C.c. as per Rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare)
Judge Judge
moni