1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1317 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2009. Smt. Mallama Vijay Harake. ... ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... ... ... Respondent. Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : J. N. PATEL and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2009. P. C.: Heard. 2. This is an application by the applicant / original accused No.3 for seeking suspension of sentence and bail. On earlier occasion the Court had rejected the application for bail filed by all the accused including the present applicant Smt. Mallama Vijay Harake. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4th August, 2006 at about 2.30 p.m. the accused Siddharam Harake informed the relatives of deceased Suwarna wife of Siddharam Harake that she fell down on account of giddiness and sustained head injury and therefore was admitted in the Jahangir Hospital. The 2 complainant, who is father of the deceased, along with his relatives came to Pune and found Suwarna admitted in I.C.U. in unconscious condition. It appears that on 11th August, 2006 at about 1.30 p.m. she died while taking treatment. It was the prosecution case that the victim was assaulted by her husband and his relatives which resulted in causing fatal injuries to her. 4. According to the prosecution the victim was assaulted for dowry by applicant as well as her relatives and was treated with cruelty and as the demands were not met on the fateful day she was brutally assaulted and done to death. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant / accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased and falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that she was on bail during the trial and that this Court may consider her application for suspension of sentence and releasing her on bail so that she could look after her grand child i.e. son of the deceased who is suffering from epilepsy. 6. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, learned APP strongly objects to the suspenses of sentence and grant of bail. It is submitted that the prosecution has sufficiently established the case against the applicant / accused by examining the neighbours and well- wishers on the point that the deceased was treated with cruelty and it was the usual affair that the applicant and her family members used to frequently assault the deceased and therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should 3 consider the suspension of sentence. 7. We have gone through the evidence on record in order to prima facie arrive at a conclusion whether the case of the applicant / accused can be considered for suspending the sentence. We find that the applicant / accused was instrumental in causing ultimate death of the deceased as the victim was treated with cruelty for hunda (dowry). Such cases are on rife in Society and merely because the applicant / accused now wants to look after her grand child cannot be the reason for suspending sentence. 8. The applicant / accused has been convicted on the charges of cruelty and causing homicidal death of her daughter-in-law along with her son and relatives. Merely because she was on bail during trial does not entitle her for suspension of sentence after the offences have been proved against her and she has been convicted by the trial Court. 9. In view of the above, the application of the applicant / accused for suspension of sentence and bail is rejected. Sd/- (J. N. PATEL, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)