Sondev vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and

learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B of IPC and 498-A of IPC but, the counsel

submits that there is no evidence against the accused appellant-applicant that he demanded any dowry in connection with the marriage. He submits

that on 18.10.2016 the deceased was found dead by hanging. On the same date on 18.10.2016 at 11:00 AM P.W./1 Pratap Singh submitted a report to

S.H.O. Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar in which he has not levelled any allegation against the appellant-applicant for demand of dowry.

Likewise on 25.10.2016 the statement of Pratap Singh (Ex.P.7) was recorded by S.D.M. Tizara but at that time also he has not levelled any allegation

of demand of dowry against the appellant-applicant. Counsel for the appellant-applicant further submits that after a lapse of long time, the allegation of

demand of dowry was levelled against the accused appellant-applicant. It is submitted that PW/5 Pramod Mishra and PW/7 Ravindra Kumar Yadav

are neighbours and have clearly stated that the deceased and the accused appellant-applicant used to live peacefully and there was no dispute or

difference between them. It is also submitted that the deceased completed B.Sc. and MBA course after marriage and the accused appellant-applicant

facilitated her to complete these course. In fact, she was a well educated and ambitious lady. She committed suicide under depression. Counsel

further submits that the accused appellant-applicant has already undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to him and hearing of appeal will

take time due to large pendency of cases in Court. He thereafter, implored to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellant-applicant. In

support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.628/2010 (Ram Dayal and Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan) decided on 26.03.2010 and another order of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.920/2017 (SoS No.337/2020) (Suresh

Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide order dated 08.05.2020.

Learned public prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the suspension of the Sentence application.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the entire material available on record, this suspension of sentence application

is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the applicant Sondev S/o Suresh Kumar shall remain suspended during the

pendency of the criminal appeal and he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 04/08/2020 and thereafter as

and when called upon to do so.