SAVITA VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No.669 of 2024, an application under Sec. 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant - Savita Vishwakarma arising out of judgment dtd. 26/12/2023 delivered in S.T. No.575/2016 passed by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP).

(2.) The appellant - Savita Vishwakarma has been convicted under Ss. 120(B) read with 115, 302 read with 120(B), 201 read with 120(B) and 203 read with 120(B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000.00, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000.00, R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000.00respectively, with default stipulations.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story, the appellant lodged a Gum Insan report on 5/3/2016 about her missing husband. An unknown dead body was found in a canal on 2/3/2016. During investigation, it was found that it is dead body of Vinod @ Raju Vishwakarma husband of the appellant. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. By taking this Court to the statement of Investigating Officer (PW-15) (para 50 and 51), it is urged that this witness candidly admitted that there was no last seen witness, which had witnessed the appellant with the deceased for the last time. The appellant is arraigned solely on the basis of recovery of a mobile phone. There is no other legal evidence, which connect the appellant with commission of crime. On the basis of ocular evidence of family members of deceased Rajkumar Vishwakarma (PW-2), Meena Vishwakarma (PW-8), Rishi Vishwakarma (PW-9) and Arjun Vishwakarma (PW-10), it cannot be said that appellant had any illicit relation with co-accused - Rajesh Tiwari. There is no iota of legal evidence to establish the same and connect the said relation with commission of crime. The appellant is a married woman and remained in custody during trial for six months and from the date of judgment, she is again in custody. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of the present appellant may be suspended.