Bhagwat Jaiswal vs State of C.G.

Heard on I.A. No. 1/2007 filed by Bhagwat Jaiswal (father-in-law of the deceased) in Cr.A. No. 381/2007 and I.A. No. 1/2007 filed by Kumari Krishna (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Jhangli Bai (mother-in-law of the deceased) in Cr.A. No. 522/2007, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to them, during pendency of this appeal.

The aforesaid three accused/Appellants along with accused Sadanand Jaiswal (husband of the deceased - Manjulata) have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Name of accused Conviction Sentence

Bhagwat Jaiswal 304-B IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for five years.

Kumari Krishna and Jhangli Bai 304-B IPC R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for ten days.

Bhagwat Jaiswal Kumari Krishna and Jhangli Bai 498-A IPC R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month.

Bhagwat Jaiswal Kumari Krishna and Jhangli Bai 306 IPC R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month.

Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the Appellants, argued that in this case at the time of preparation of inquest on the body of deceased Manjulata, father of the deceased namely; Radheshyam (P.W. 1) was present, but he did not made any allegation that Manjulata consumed poison on account of harassment and cruelty meted out to her for demand of dowry. Learned Counsel submits that the Police diary statement of Radheshyam was recorded on 17-5-2006. He also submits that accused/Appellants Kumari Krishna and Jhangli Bai were on bail during trial. Moreover, the President of the community of the accused and the complainant namely; Tameshwar (P.W. 5) has stated that Radheshyam never informed him that the accused/Appellants are subjecting Manju to cruelty for demand of dowry, therefore, the substantive sentence as well as the fine amount imposed on the accused/Appellants be suspended during pendency of this appeal.

On the other hand, Shri Bajpai, learned Counsel for the State, objected the bail applications and stated that the accused/Appellants are not entitled for suspension of sentence.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, having considered the fact that P.W. 1 Radheshyam (father of the deceased) has stated that he informed the President of his community namely; Tameshwar regarding the harassment meted out to his daughter Manju for demand of dowry whereas in the Court evidence Tameshwar has stated that Radheshyam never informed him about the demand of dowry, he only stated that the accused persons are harassing his daughter and considering the fact that the accused/Appellant Bhagwat Jaiswal is a Peon in Public Works Department and residing at Bhatgaon along with his family members whereas the deceased and her husband Sadanand Jaiswal were residing at Beltikari, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which substantive sentence as well as fine amount imposed on accused/Appellants can be suspended. Accordingly, the applications (I.A. No. 1/2007 filed in Cr.A. No. 381/2007 and I.A. No. 1/2007 filed in Cr.A. No. 522/2007) are allowed.

It is directed that substantive sentence and fine amount imposed on accused/Appellants namely; Bhagwat Jaiswal, Kumari Krishna and Jhangli Bai shall remain suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on 29-10-2007 and thereafter shall continue to appear there as and when directed in this behalf by the court concerned, till the final disposal of the appeal.

A copy of this order be placed on the records of Cr.A. Nos. 381/2007 and 522/2007.