Ghadse Seema Gulab vs State

The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Smt. Ghadse

Seema Gulab, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Learned counsel Mr. Raohitash Singh Rathore, representing the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently urges that there is no evidence worth

the name on the record of the case connecting the appellant with the crime. She was married to the deceased Kaushalraj @ Harish after a love affair

just about a month before the incident. There was no strife between the appellant and her husband. As per him, the fact that the wrist of the deceased

was slit, clearly indicates that it is a case of suicide plain and simple, which has been given the twist of murder. The conduct of the family members of

the deceased in not making any effort whatsoever to take him to the hospital indicates towards their guilt. He, thus, urges that the appellant, who is a

woman, deserves indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urges that the

appellant-applicant was the sole person present in the bed-room, where her husband Kaushalraj was found dead. Numerous abrasions were noticed

on the body of the deceased in addition to the slit wound on his wrist, which ultimately led to his death. The appellant-applicant did not offer any

explanation whatsoever for large number of injuries found on the body of the deceased and thus, she failed to discharge the reverse burden of proof

cast upon her by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. On these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor implored the court to dismiss the application for

suspension of sentences.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. It is

evident from the evidence of the prosecution witness that the appellant was married to the deceased just a month and few days before the incident. It

also emerges from the record that the deceased was a boy of slender build and as he could not find a match in his own community, the appellant was

sought out from Maharashtra and was married to deceased. Apparently, because of weak constitution of Kushalraj, the appellant was not satisfied

with him.

There is wholesome evidence on record to show that only the deceased and the appellant were present in the room, where the dead body of

Kaushalraj was found. As per the postmortem report, large number of injuries including abrasions etc. were noticed on the dead body in addition to the

slit on the wrist, which led to excessive bleeding causing the death of Kaushalraj. In these circumstances, the appellant was under an obligation to

explain the circumstances, in which Kaushalraj received the injuries which proved fatal. She did not offer any explanation whatsoever in this regard.

Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Thus, application for suspension of sentences is dismissed as being devoid of merit.