Sushma vs State of Haryana

Learned State counsel has filed affidavit of Sh. Jai Dev Bishnoi, Superintendent, B.I.&J. Jail, Hisar mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant Sushma. The same is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of applicant/appellant Sushma during the pendency of the appeal.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Bijender, elder brother of Bhup Singh (deceased). It is alleged that Bhup Singh (deceased) was a photographer and was younger brother of the complainant. About 3-4 days back, Bhup Singh had gone with Ashok Kumar for taking photographs in the marriage. In the intervening night of 30/31.3.2008 at about 9/10.00 p.m. after taking his meal, Bijender had gone to sleep in his house. In the morning at about 6/6.30 a.m. he heard applicant/appellant Sushma weeping. On enquiry, she disclosed that Bhup Singh (deceased), brother of Bijender had come home at 12 O'' Clock at night along with three boys. They all had taken drinks. Her husband asked her to sleep outside with his children. She went to sleep in the courtyard of the house along with the children. When she woke up in the morning, she found the neck of her husband Bhup Singh had been cut and he was lying dead on the bed. On this Bijender went inside and saw his brother Bhup Singh lying dead on the ''Diwan''. There were deep injuries on his neck. Three unknown boys who had accompanied Bhup Singh (deceased) at night, it is alleged, had murdered him with sharp edged weapons while he was sleeping. He informed this to other family members and respectables of the village. Formal FIR for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. On 10.4.2008 Sushma (applicant/appellant) made an extra-judicial confession before Dharambir (PW1) son of Nihal Singh resident of village Budha Khera Lather and to Rohtas, resident of village Khanpur Kalan that she along with Mahender son of Sandroop had murdered Bhup Singh. Mahender son of Sandroop, co-accused of the applicant/appellant Sushma committed suicide on 10.4.2008. During investigation, Sushma (applicant/appellant) was arrested.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession of applicant/appellant Sushma made before Dharambir (PW1). It is submitted that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and a conviction can not be based on the same. Besides, it is submitted that the applicant/appellant fulfills the guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 600.

In response, learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has established its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The applicant/appellant had murdered her own husband Bhup Singh. Therefore, her sentence of imprisonment is not liable to be suspended.

After giving our thoughtful considerations to the matter, it may be noticed that there are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration. In terms of the affidavit dated 26.5.2012 of Sh. Jai Dev Bishnoi, Superintendent, B.I.&J. Jail, Hisar, the applicant/appellant Sushma has undergone imprisonment of 4 years and 18 days as on 26.5.2012. This includes a period of 3 years, 4 months and 7 days post-conviction. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal (Supra) has held that life convicts who have undergone five years of imprisonment of which three years should be after conviction should be released on bail pending hearing of the appeal. The said period has been reduced to imprisonment for four years and two years after conviction in respect of ladies. Therefore, the case of the applicant/appellant Sushma indeed falls within the guidelines laid down by this Court in Dharampal''s case (Supra). In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Sushma shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.