Sushil Kumar @ Monu vs State

The learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentence and proposes to argue the matter orally.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as material

available on record.

The contention of Shri Vineet Jain learned counsel representing the appellant praying for bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal is that the

appellant and the deceased Smt. Preeti @ Tina had contracted a love marriage. The deceased unfortunately expired on 10.11.2012. No complaint

whatsoever was made by any of the maternal family members of the deceased regarding her death. The medical evidence does not indicate that the

death of Smt. Preeti @ Tina was homicidal. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was present in the house at the time of

incident. He further submits that appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. On these grounds, he implored

the court to accept the application for suspension of sentence and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant during pendency of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the

appellant was married to Smt. Preeti @ Tina just nine months before the incident. As per him, the circumstances noticed during postmortem are

indicative of murder rather than it being a case of suicide. He urged that even if it is a case of suicide, the incident took place within nine months of

the marriage of the appellant with the deceased and thus the burden of explaining as to under what circumstance the lady committed suicide would be

upon the appellant, who has not stated anything in this regard. Thus, he urged that appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of the

appeal.

We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. It cannot be denied that no

complaint whatsoever was made by the maternal family members of the deceased that she was ever harassed or humiliated in the matrimonial home

on any count whatsoever. Even at the trial, Bal Kishan (PW-5) being the father of the deceased Smt. Preeti @ Tina did not level any allegation

against the appellant. The medical opinion expressed by the Medical Officers Dr. Dinesh Vaishnav (PW-15) and Dr. Pratibha Sanadhya (PW-17) is

not conclusive to the effect that the death of Smt. Preeti @ Tina was homicidal. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty

so granted to him. We are thus of the opinion that the appellant has strong ground so as to assail the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is

likely to consume time.

Thus, upon consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion

that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3 Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 16.12.2019 in Sessions Case No.24/2013 against the appellant-

applicant Sushil Kumar @ Monu S/o Ishwar Lal 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 23.03.2020 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.