Dharampal And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.2734/2018 an application for suspension of execution of sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 and grant of bail.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellant No.1 against judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, District- Narsinghpur in Special Trial No.175/2014.

Appellant No.1 stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 2 months each and under Section 304-B of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution case, on 09.04.2014, Kalpana Patel (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, marg was registered. During investigation, it is found that marriage of Kalpana Patel was solemnized with appellant No.1 on 30.04.2008. Thereafter, appellant No.1 and co-accused demanded two acres of land and some amount in cash from her, as dowry. Due to non fulfillment of dowry they humiliated and tortured her so she committed suicide. Thereafter, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present appellant and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 submits that appellant-accused No.1 has served almost three years sentence out of 8 years, as awarded by the trial court. Appellant No.1 remained in jail during trial from 13.04.2014 to 05.03.2015, thereafter, he is in jail since 20.09.2018. There is no convincing material available on the record on which it can be said that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant-accused No.1 or any relative in connection with demand of dowry. There is general allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty against appellant-accused No.1. Statement of PW-1 Ahilyabai, mother of the deceased has been recorded in which she admitted this fact that she had given the statement before the trial court according to as per saying of her Advocate. So, it appears that the parents of deceased had engaged an Advocate and they deposed before the trial court with the advice of their Advocate. So, their evidence is not reliable. Mohan Singh (PW-2) is the uncle of deceased. He deposed before the trial court that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry from deceased's parents. There are material contradiction and omission in the version of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that deceased was suffering from mental illness. Due to this, she committed suicide. Appellant-accused produced defence in this regard before the trial court. He produced defence witnesses as Hakam Singh (DW-1), Than Singh (DW-2), Dhaniram Lodhi (DW-3), Laxman Singh Lodhi (DW-4) and also produced medical certificate/papers of deceased which shows that deceased was suffering from mentall illness. Thus, learned trial court did not appreciate the defense of appellant No.1 in perspective way. This appeal is of year 2018 and trial will take time to conclude the same. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the evidence. Under the circumstances, if the execution of sentence of the appellant is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant-accused.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the submission of appellant's counsel by submitting that deceased has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, so appellant is not entitled for grant of bail, hence he prays for rejection of application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1.

Heard and perused the record.

Having considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the facts that appellant No.1 has served almost three years sentence, he also produced his defense that deceased was suffering from medical illness, this appeal is of year 2018, final hearing of this appeal will take time so considering the custodial period of the appellant and the evidence available on the record, it is appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence of the appellant and grant him bail hence without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the said I.A. is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant-Dharampal 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 same like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the learned trial court on 17.12.2020 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.

In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the trial court then the said court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.

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, as per listing policy. C.C. as per rules.