Dayaram And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

Heard on I.A.No.4041/2020, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 1/accused- Dayaram.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Betul District-Betul in Session Trial No.179/2014.

Appellant No. 1/accused- Dayaram stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 304-B of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, Section 498-A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations.

A s per prosecution case, on 09.04.2014 deceased Meena Pawar tried to commit suicide by hanging thereafter, she was admitted at hospital and on 13.04.2014 she has been died. Marg was registered and it is found that marriage of deceased Meena Pawar was solemnized with appellant-accused No. 1 Dayaram in the year 2008, thereafter appellant-accused and co-accused demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand, they humiliated and tortured, so she committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-accused Dayaram has served almost three years sentence out of seven years. He remained in jail during trial from 14.04.2014 to 03.11.2014 and thereafter he is in jail since 10.05.2018 till now. Appellant-accused Dayaram and deceased were residing happily and out of their wedlock two children were blessed but due to domestic work deceased committed suicide. They are Kurmi by caste, there is no custom in his caste to demand dowry. Mother of deceased Kamla Bai PW/4 admitted this fact that they did not give any dowry at the time of marriage. There is general allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty. Chetram PW/1 is the father of the deceased, he did not alleged any specific fact about demand of dowry and cruelty. Kalpna PW/6 is the sister of the deceased, she deposed before the trial court that appellant-Dayaram murdered her sister, so there is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of all the witnesses. No external injury is found on the body of the deceased. Dr. Ranjeet Singh Parihar PW/12 examined the deceased, he stated that no external injury is found on the body of the deceased, so it cannot be said that appellant-accused Dayaram beat her at the time of incident. There is no evidence available on the record on which it can be said that deceased was subjected to cruelty harassment by the appellant-accused Dayaram, or co-accused in connection with any demand of dowry. He further submits that execution of jail sentence of other co-accused Hira Bai already been suspended and released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.07.2020. This appeal is of year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take time. It is the time of COVID-19 Pandemic so social distancing is required, There are fair chance to succeed in the appeal. On these grounds prayer is made for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail.

Learned P.L. has opposed the application.

Considering the contention of both the parties, and the fact that appellant-accused Dayaram has served almost three years sentence out of seven years. He remained in jail during trial from 14.04.2014 to 03.11.2014 and thereafter he is in jail since 10.05.2018 till now. Appellant-accused has two children, no external injury is found on the body of the deceased, there is general allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty, no specific allegation available on record about torture and humiliation of the deceased in relation to demand of dowry, there is no previous complaint regarding demand of dowry, jail sentence of other co-accused Hira Bai already been suspended and released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.07.2020. This appeal is of year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take time, it is the time of COVID-19 Pandemic so social distancing is required, but without commenting anything on the merit of the case, the said I.A. No.4041/2020 is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant-accused No. 1 Dayaram shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 16.12.2020 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter for final hearing in due course. C.C. as per rules.