Mahendra vs State on 19 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 1136 / 2017
Mahendra S/o Shri Kalu Lal Choudhary, R/o- Thokar Choraha,
Udaipur. (Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur).
—-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor.
For Complainant(s): Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
19/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned

Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.

By the instant application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.,

applicant-appellant has craved for suspending the sentence

handed down by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities

Cases), Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), by its verdict

dated 08.11.2017. Learned trial Court, by the aforesaid verdict,

while acquitting applicant-appellant for offence under Section 302

IPC, convicted him for offence under Section 304B IPC and handed

down sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and for

offence under Section 498A IPC two years’ rigorous imprisonment

with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further

undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.
(2 of 4)
[SOSA-1136/2017]

It is argued by learned counsel that during trial appellant-

applicant was on bail. It is further submitted by learned counsel

that FIR itself was lodged after six days from the date of death of

deceased Ms. Manisha. Learned counsel further submits that

learned trial Court has not examined the evidence in right

perspective, more particularly, the allegations about perpetrating

cruelty on the deceased for demand of dowry or any valuable

security just before death. While referring to statements of PW3

Chadrakanta, mother of deceased, learned counsel submits that

she has admitted in clear and unequivocal terms that at the time

of marriage, there was no demand of dowry by the appellant-

applicant or his family members and furthermore his daughter has

never complained against the appellant-applicant or his family

members for demand of dowry and her only complaint was about

their behaviour. Learned counsel has also referred statements of

PW4 Anant Kumar, I.O., and submits that a cumulative reading of

his statements also makes it abundantly clear that offence under

Section 304B IPC is not made out. With all these submissions,

learned counsel has argued that sentence awarded by the learned

trial Court may be suspended.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

application for suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, has

strenuously urged that there was evidence available to show

demand of dowry and harassment, therefore, learned trial Court

has rightly indicted accused-applicant for offence under Section

304B IPC.
(3 of 4)
[SOSA-1136/2017]

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned order and also

scanned materials available on record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the sentence awarded, I feel inclined to accept this

application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women

Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, vide judgment dated 08.11.2017, in

Sessions Case No.184/2013, against appellant-applicant Mahendra

S/o Shri Kalu Lal Choudhary, shall remain suspended till final

disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail,

provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial

Judge for his appearance in this Court on 19.02.2018 and

whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the

conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel
in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
(4 of 4)
[SOSA-1136/2017]

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also

be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall

not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to

pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said

accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court, the

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.

(P.K. LOHRA),J.

Twinkle Singh/56

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *