LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-143

NARESHKUMAR SUKANRAJ KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 11, 2020
Nareshkumar Sukanraj Kothari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/convicted accused No.1 on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him. He is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On first count, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and on second count, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and on the third count, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Some fine is also imposed so also the default sentence. The learned trial Court has directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/convicted accused No.1. He argued that all other convicted accused persons are released on bail. According to the learned Counsel, short sentence of imprisonment is imposed on the applicant/convicted accused No.1 and the appeal will take its own time to conclude. He drew my attention to the evidence of P.W.No.2 Khushabu - daughter of the couple to point out that alleged cruelty was not legal cruelty, but it was domestic cruelty. Similarly, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant/ convicted accused No.1 evidence of P.W.No.7 Samir - son of the couple demonstrates conduct of the applicant/convicted accused No.1 for trying to break open the door of the bed room after the alleged quarrel between the husband and wife. The learned Counsel further argued that evidence of other prosecution witnesses, who are parental relatives of the victim, is much vague as it can be and no instance of cruelty has reflected from their evidence.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying on evidence of P.W.No.7 Samir argued that the deceased had committed suicide because of provocation by the applicant/convicted accused No.1, who happens to be her husband and, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.