RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.5763/2018, an application filed under Sections 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Raj Kumar and appellant No.2 Moolchand Rajpoot.

(2.) It is appellants' contention that the dying declaration Exhibit P/3 does not inspire any confidence, inasmuch as it was recorded by the Police Constable and there is no certification from any doctor in regard to the condition of the patient. It is also submitted that there is serious enmity with appellant Raj Kumar and he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that as per Exhibit D/3 Raj Kumar had given evidence against the husband of the prosecutrix and has objected to his bail in the year 2010 which ultimately results into conviction of her husband in the year 2017. It is submitted that because of such enmity, they have been falsely implicated. It is a fit case to enlarge the appellants on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Anjani Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 1 MPHT 142, wherein the High Court in Paragraph 10 held that from the evidence it is established that accused tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased but their act was serious to what extent is not established so as to make-out a case under Section 306, IPC. Though it is true that a woman may commit suicide if her modesty is outraged but for that degree, the act of the accused is required to be established.