Rambati Bai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard.

The appeal contains arguable points and is accordingly admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.8615/20, the first application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant.

The appellant was convicted under Section 120-B, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 26 years. She has been falsely implicated. There was no eye witness to the incident. The main accused Mehtab succeeded in obtaining bail from this Court in the connected Criminal Appeal No.3746/20. In absence of any legal evidence against this appellant, the Court below has erred in holding the appellant guilty. The final hearing of this appeal in this pandemic era will take time in near future, therefore remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.

Prayer is formally opposed by learned P.L.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

As per prosecution story, the present appellant alongwith main accused Mehtab murdered the deceased. This Court in the case of Mehtab while passing the order dated 24.07.2020 observed as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution and wrongly held guilty by the Court below. The deceased Rajesh @ Bistu was not traceable since 26.06.2015 but his wife lodged a "Gum Insaan report" on 03.07.2015. Alongwith appellant other persons were falsely implicated but however, 6 persons have been acquitted. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident. The skeleton of the deceased Rajesh was recovered allegedly at the instance of the present appellant. By taking this Court to the recovery memo Annexure P/15 and P/16, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said documents do not support the story of prosecution. The independent witnesses of recovery have turned hostile. The investigating officer (PW-16) statement also does not inspire confidence. He deposed that at the time of recording "Gum Insaan report", he recorded the statement of present appellant regarding location of skeleton/dead body of Rajesh but no such statement was produced before the Court below. There is no iota of evidence, which can prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. In absence of any clinching evidence, the Court below has erred in holding the appellant as guilty.

The prayer is opposed by Shri Akshay Pawar, learned Panel Lawyer on the strength of relevant paragraphs of judgment and exhibit P/15 and P/16, the documents relating to recovery of dead body/skeleton.

We have heard the parties at length.

We have considered the statement of independent witnesses who turned hostile and did not support the recovery memo on the strength of which alone the appellant was held guilty. We have also considered the statement of police officer (PW-16). The other 6 co-accused persons have been acquitted by the court below. Final hearing of this matter is not possible in near future in this Covid-19 era. Considering the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. I.A. is allowed."

By applying the principle of parity, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of this appellant also.

Accordingly, the said I.A. is allowed. Execution of jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the appellant Rambati Bai be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2020 and also on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

The said I.A. is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.