High Court allowed suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for the appellant convicted in a dowry-related case pending disposal of criminal appeal, conditioning release on personal bond and personal appearance.
Suspension of sentence allowed pending disposal of appeal; personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties executed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 16/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 18/2023
Vivek S/o Shri Rumi Singh, Resident Of 55, Diamond City, Nagla Padma, Gwalior Road, Rohata, Agra (U.p) (At Present Confined In Sevar Jail, Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh and | |
| Mr. Gaurav Sharma | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Imran Khan, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
04/07/2023
The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 30.01.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2022 in Sessions Case No. 36/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and ten years respectively along with fine.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that deceased had committed suicide in her father’s house and during treatment she was referred for to a better centre for treatment but her father refused to take her to Jaipur for better treatment. He further
[SOSA-16/2023]
(2 of 4)
submitted that initially a case was registered under Section 306/511 IPC but later on a twist was noticed with allegation of demand of dowry. He further submitted that there was no evidence to verify the fact of demand of dowry and cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry. He further submitted that in this case, during treatment, the statement was recorded by ASI of Police but no fitness certificate was obtained from doctor. He submitted that at the time of admission, deceased sustained burn injury up to 90 percent and it was impossible for any person who suffered 90 percent burn injury to speak anything. He further referred the thumb impression of deceased on Ex.P-1 and submitted that at two different places, thumb impressions were affixed which indicated that this statement Ex.P-1 was not recorded as per version of injured (later on deceased). He further referred the statement of PW-17 who recorded this Ex.P-1 and submitted that he did not informed any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for recording of dying declaration, which means no reliance can be placed on Ex.P-1. He further referred the Indian Evidence Act and Rajasthan Police Rules to submit that no compliance was made by PW-17 and same was admitted during cross-examination. He further referred the statement of PW-14 (Dr. R.D. Sharma) to submit that deceased was not in a position to make statement. He further referred the statement of other witnesses including IO (PW-32) to submit that this is not a case wherein present appellant was involved in any manner for causing cruelty or demand of dowry and forcing deceased to commit suicide. He further referred the material available on record to submit the fact
(3 of 4) [SOSA-16/2023]
that the abetment of suicide was not proved in the matter and deceased committed suicide due to her own problem and same was proved on record, therefore learned trial court had committed a serious error while convicting present appellant. At last, he submitted that appellant remained in custody throughout the trial and he had already undergone 4 years in custody, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor though no one is present for complainant.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
A perusal of record clearly indicated that marriage of deceased was solemnized with present appellant on 08.02.2018. On the basis of oral statement (Ex.P-1) of deceased when she was admitted for treatment in RBM Hospital, it was recorded by PW-17 wherein she alleged that she was subjected to torture and cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by present appellant and other relatives of husband, though there were serious objections as regard to process of recording of this Ex.P-1 is concerned. In this matter, Sudhina got burnt injuries in her father’s house and thereafter she was taken for treatment though on record it was submitted that she sustained 95 percent burn injury and her relatives refused to take her to a better centre for further treatment. There was evidence to this fact as well that the injured (later on deceased) was not in a position to record her statement. Again all these facts are to be considered on merits.
In this case, there were certain evidence for mental disorder
[SOSA-16/2023]
(4 of 4)
of deceased and same was admitted in report of prosecution in this application for suspension of sentence. The matter was investigated by 6 investigating officers and entire material is part of record.
Considering the entirety of the case and the fact that disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Vivek S/o Shri Rumi Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 18.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
Misc. Application stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /36
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. pending disposal of appeal.
Whether appellant is entitled to bail consideration having served over four years in custody.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vivek S/o Shri Rumi Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
