S.B.CR.MISC.APPLLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE NO.946/2007 (Jitendra Vs. State of Raj.) IN S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585/2007 Date of order :: 24.01.2008 HON'BLE MR. KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, J. Mr.Shambhoo Singh ] Mr.Bharat Shrimali ], for the applicant-appellant. Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, PP for the State. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application under Section 389 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the appellant Jitendra for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the accused-appellant Jitendra has been convicted for offence under Sections 498-A, 304 B and under Section 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no specific allegation regarding the demand of dowry. He has drawn my attention towards the statements of PW- 1 Lalita, PW-Mana Ram, PW-3 Harish Chandra, PW-9 Surta and contended that PW-1 has only stated in her statement that when deceased came one month before her death, she did not say anything regarding demand of dowry. PW-2 who is father of the deceased, has also stated that her daughter came to his house ten days before her death and also stayed there but she did not tell anything to him. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that PW-3, who is brother of the deceased has stated that his sister met him 20-25 days before her death but she did not talk with him and thereafter, she died. PW-9 Surta also said in his statement that Narvda came to her parental house and met her but she only told that her in-laws quarreled with her. Deceased did not say anything regarding the demand of dowry to her. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention towards the statement of PW-14 Kanti and also contended that he is brother- in-law of the deceased. He has stated in his statement that he went to Narvda's house and saw her in burning condition and when he asked her why she so done then she replied that she has done it without any cause. Learned Counsel has also contended that PW-2 Mana Ram also admitted that Kanti Lal met Narvda, who told him that at that time of burning, there was a dispute regarding preparation of meal only. It is next contended that sentence of the co-accused has already been suspended by this Court vide its order dated 23.8.2007. Accused-appellant Jitendra was also on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail. In last, he prays that accused-applicant has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Jitendra may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application seeking suspension of sentence and states that deceased died within two years of her marriage and the evidence has come on record that after one month of her marriage, she has been subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry has also been raised. Therefore, the sentence of the accused-appellant Jitendra may not be suspended. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the statements of PW-1 Lalita, PW-Mana Ram, PW-3 Harish Chandra, PW-9 Surta as well as medical evidence. These witnesses have not said specifically that there was demand of dowry soon before the death of Narvda. The accused-appellant Jitendra was on bail during the course of trial. The sentence of co-accused has already been suspended by this Court. Whether there was any demand of dowry soon before the death or not, it will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that accused-appellant has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, at this stage, without commenting on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused- appellant Jitendra. Accordingly, the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Doongarpur vide his judgment dated 24.07.2007 in Sessions Case No.90/2006 (95/2006) against the accused- appellant Jitendra S/o Shri Hira Lal shall remain suspended till the final disposal of aforesaid appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court on 25.2.2008 and whenever called upon to do so. (KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA), J. NK