DULARI JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No. 2723/18 alleged first application in this Criminal Appeal on behalf of appellant filed under section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C , 1973for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant and the record of the trial court and objection/reply filed on behalf of respondent/State are also perused.

(2.) Appellant Dulari has been convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri vide judgment dated 14.7. 2017 under section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of her son Pankaj about five months old by an axe and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on non depositing of fine amount, she is directed to suffer one year RI additional.

(3.) Appearing counsel for the appellant contends that appellant/mother of the deceased was falsely implicated in the crime as husband of the appellant, Pawan was alleging that he was not biological father of the deceased Pankaj and it was the defence of the appellant before the trial court that deceased Pankaj was actually murdered by his father Pawan. There was no any eye witness of murder and though allegedly the incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m on 9.5. 2016 but appellant's mother-inlaw, complainant Suabai after consulting with his family members lodged dehati nalisi at 20=30 hours and complainant Suabai (PW-1) deposed before the trial court that at the time of incident her three other daughter-in-laws (bahuain), on shouting of the complainant, has caught hold appellant, who was having an axe in her hand, but during investigation the axe is said to be seized on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P-4) of the appellant at 23=15 hours on the date of incident. Hence alleged disclosure statement (Ex. P-4) of appellant and seizure memo (Ex. P-5) were totally suspicious and unbelievable and complainant Suabai deposed before trial court and it is also mentioned in her dehati nalisi (Ex. P-1) that about one month prior to the incident appellant left her matrimonial house without intimating anyone, then her husband had lodged complaint at police station. Complainant Suabai (PW-1) admitted in her cross-examination (para-4) that appellant's husband was at their house at 5 p.m. on the date of incident. Similarly, complainant Suabai (PW-1) deposed in para-10 that Pawan telephonically intimated his other brothers Udal, Naresh; and Hakki was also called and Naresh and Hakki came at 7 pm with Jagdeesh and all these persons gathered till 8:30 pm and in para- 11 complainant deposed that parents of the appellant were also called , but they did not come, therefore, dehati nalisi (Ex. P-1) was lodged at 8:30 pm to the police officer, who reached their house after receiving telephonic intimation. It is further argued that complainant Suabai (PW-1) deposed in para-20 that after incident appellant's hand were tied with rope and she was closed in the room used for keeping animals, because she was pressing her own throat for committing suicide, but this important fact is missing in dehati nalisi (Ex. P-1) and complainant's police statement (Ex. D-1). Complainant Suabai (PW-1) admitted in para-15 that appellant was not ready to come to her matrimonial house, then many persons have gone to brought her back to matrimonial house. Complainant Suabai (PW-1) clearly deposed in para-20 that police reached at her house at 6 p.m, but dehati nalisi (Ex. P-1) was lodged at 20=30 pm and all these facts indicate that appellant has been falsely implicated and as a mother of deceased, she could not murder her own infant son. It is submitted that Pawan (PW-5) admitted that he had seen the burn injuries on the body of appellant. It is further submitted that during trial appellant was bailed out and there is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal appeal. Hence, it is prayed that in view of these facts and circumstances, appellant is entitled for suspension of her custodial sentence.