1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1158 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1077 OF 2006 Dattu Murlidhar Madhvai .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik for the applicant Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & R.S.MOHITE, JJ R.S.MOHITE, JJ R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 8TH JANUARY, 2007 DATED : 8TH JANUARY, 2007 DATED : 8TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is convicted for having committed offence punishable under section 302, 304B and 498 A r/w s.34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad by his judgment and order dt.16.10.2006. It is the prosecution’s case that the applicant married Kavita on 20.05.2002 and sum of Rs.50,000/- was 2 given in dowry. Inspite of that an additional demand of sum of Rs.50,000/- was made, out of which Rs.10,000/- was paid and balance amount of Rs.40,000/- was not paid. Kavita was treated with cruelty in order to coerce her to bring balance amount of Rs.40,000/-. 3. According to the prosecution, the appellant lodged a missing report in respect of his wife Kavita whose dead body was subsequently found on 30.08.03 in the well of a field belonging to one Ranjana Madhvai. The dead body was having injury on the head and blood was oozing from the nose and ears, as can be seen from the post mortem report. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries suffered were ante mortem. Cause of death is due to cardio-respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to drowning with head injury. The appellant was tried alongwith other co-accused who were convicted only for having committed offence u.s.498A r/w s.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that during trial, the applicant 3 was on bail and he has not misused his bail and therefore till his appeal is disposed of by this court, substantive sentence be suspended. It has been tried to be canvassed that the case is wholly based on circumstantial evidence and the possibility of deceased Kavita having committed suicide or having accidently fallen in the well cannot be ruled out and, therefore, this is a fit case where the appellant’s sentence can be suspended. 5. The application is objected to by the learned A.P.P. on the ground that this is a case of dowry death and the very fact that the victim was assaulted and thrown away in the well is supported by medical and forensic evidence and, therefore, this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 6. We find that the evidence on record does indicate that the appellant is responsible for causing her death and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case this is not a fit case where the applicant on being convicted of a serious 4 charge of causing dowry death can be released on bail by suspending his substantive sentence mainly on the ground that he was on bail during trial. Therefore, the application is rejected. ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI R.S.MOHITE, J ) ( SHRI R.S.MOHITE, J ) ( SHRI R.S.MOHITE, J )