Mangu Singh vs State

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally.

Heard learned Senior counsel Shri Purohit assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit representing the applicant-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

This is second application for SOS filed on behalf of the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated

22.10.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro in Original Sessions Case No. 39/2015 :-

Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default

  sentences

Section 302 IPC Life Rs.50,000/- 01 month SI

 Imprisonment

Section 498-A IPC 03 years' SI Rs.10,000/- 01 month SI

Section 201/34 IPC 01 year SI Rs.10,000/- 01 month SI

The appellant-applicant herein is in custody from 08.09.2013. The first application for SOS filed on behalf of the appellant-applicant was dismissed as

not pressed by this Court on 22.08.2017. The appeal has not been taken up for hearing even once thereafter.

The fervent contention of learned Senior counsel Shri Purohit assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit is that ex facie the finding recorded by the trial court in the

impugned judgment that the appellant- applicant strangulated his wife Smt. Suman to death is perverse on the face of the record. He urges that the

trial court has recorded categorical finding to the effect that the prosecution could not establish that the deceased Smt. Suman was being harassed or

humiliated on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was acquitted from the charges under Section

304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He drew the Court's attention to the deposition of P.W. 13 - Dr. Alkendra and urged that

the medical officer, categorically stated that the cause of death of Smt. Suman was asphyxia by hanging. He, thus, urges that there being total lack of

evidence on record to show that the homicidal death of Smt. Suman was caused by strangulation, the conviction of the appellant-applicant for the

offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained. On these grounds, he fervently implored the Court to accept the application for SOS.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant- applicant. But he too is not in a

position to dispute the fact that the prosecution evidence totally lacks on the aspect of harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of

dowry soon before her death and with this conclusion, the accused-appellant was acquitted by the trial court from the charges under Section 304-B of

I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On going through the evidence of P.W. 13 - Dr. Alkendra, it is clear that the doctor has given categorical opinion that there were no signs of

strangulation on the dead body and the cause of death of Smt. Suman was asphyxia by hanging.

In this background, we are convinced that the appellant- applicant has strong grounds so as to assail the impugned judgment of conviction.

In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just and proper to suspend the

sentences awarded to the appellant- applicant, during pendency of the appeal. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.

Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro vide judgment dated 22.10.2016 in Original Sessions Case No.

39/2015 against the appellant-applicant - Mangu Singh, S/o Bhanwar Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he

shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of

the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 15.02.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions

indicated below:-

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to

the counsel in the High Court.

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 the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc.

Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court.

In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.