D.B.Criminal (Iind) Bail Application NO.619/08 in D.B.Cr.Appeal No.13/2007 Mahendra Kumar v. State Date of order: 03.09.08 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA,J. Mr.M.D. Purohit, Senior Advocate & Mr. Anand Purohit for the petitioner-appellant. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary,PP for the State. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned PP on the second application for suspension of sentence, as the first application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.3.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that cause of death has been shown as strangulation, whereas not a single question has been asked to accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.. In view of the above, any evidence for proving the fact of strangulation and connecting it to the accused, cannot be read in evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) and Kuldip Singh and ors. vs. State of Delhi ( (2004)12 SCC 528) and the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1976 SC 2140) and yet another judgment delivered in the case of Sudhakar Sarangi v. State (1992 Cri.L.J. 1866). 2. The learned PP submitted that the accused was married earlier and the victim was his second wife. The victim's marriage with the appellant took place on 27.6.2004 and in this unfortunate incident, the victim died on 2.1.2005 only. It is also submitted that the oral evidence and medical evidence fully connect the accused only and none else with the commission of murder of Smt. Ramanbala. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned PP and perused the record as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that putting a question to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313, CR.P.C. is not empty formality and it has its importance and if the material question is not put to the accused, then that may lead to acquittal of the accused, there cannot be any dispute but here in this case, there are lot of many other circumstances for which there cannot be any comment at this stage and, therefore, we do not incline to accept this second application for suspension of sentence. Hence this second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. (C. M. TOTLA),J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.