Ishwardas vs State Of M.P

Submissions were made on I.A.No.5505/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence of appellant Ishwardas, who has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 of IPC by Addl.Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain vide judgment dated 20.11.2018 in S.T.No.426/2017 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and two years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count with default stipulation in respect of offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

The prosecution case was that on 16.4.2017 the appellant fetched his wife Lalitabai and daughter Shraddha from his in-law's house and took them on motorcycle, but at 1.30 PM he returned to his in-law's house and intimated the parents of Lalitabai that Lalitabai has met with accident and he would take her to hospital. However, Lalitabai's body was found lying below the mango tree near the well of one Shantilal Patidar. The body was discovered by one Kamal Patidar, who gave the intimation. It was found that there was injury on the forehead of the deceased and her face was covered with a cloth. Suspicion arose on appellant and he was taken under custody and he confessed his crime and was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as described earlier.

In the application filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. it has been mentioned that prosecution has not examined Kamal Patidar, who has first seen the body and even Shantilal Patidar has not been examined besides whose well and hut, the body was found lying. Further, it is mentioned that 11 years old daughter Payal (PW-3) is a tutored witness, who states that appellant used to commit cruelty on his wife Lalitabai, that the deceased and appellant had entered into compromise and had started living together again. On these grounds suspension of sentence has been sought.

Both the learned counsels were heard.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the circumstances in which the incident took place, there can be no other inference drawn except that it was the appellant, who was responsible for the death of deceased, his wife and all attempts to show the death as a result of accident have failed.

Considered the submissions and perused the record of the case.

From perusal of the evidence on record it is apparent that appellant had told his in-laws that Lalitabai had suffered an accident and he has taken her to hospital. However, such averments were found to be false as body of Lalitabai was found below a mango tree. The trial Court has rightly observed in para 44 that no person would abandon his wife. Further, it has been found that appellant was carrying a mobile phone but he did not intimate anyone, which is unusual and it was not explained by the appellant what he was doing in his village Asawata, when he knew that his wife has suffered an accident. It has been found that appellant tried to flee after the incident, which again is a relevant fact against him. The non-examination of Kamal Patidar and Shantilal Patidar is not a major lacuna in the case. Admittedly, appellant had dispute with Lalitabai and Lalitabai had been living in her matrimonial home with her children. The conduct of appellant poses number of questions and the appellant has offered no satisfactory explanation. Hence, after due consideration no case is made out for suspension of sentence. The applications stands rejected.

It is an admitted appeal, the same be listed for hearing in due course.