MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to the effect that there was any demand of dowry soon before death. Further, he has submitted that the conviction awarded to the accused-Appellant is only on the basis of presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. He has also submitted that a perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court reveals that the husband-Appellant had not murdered his wife Afsana B. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that in this case the accused was arrested on 31-5-2006 and as such he is in custody for more than four years by now whereas the sentence awarded to him is of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is not likely to be decided in near future. Therefore, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that the sentence awarded to the accused be suspended daring the pendency of appeal. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the case of (1) Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, 1999 CrLR 345 (2) Shailendra Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2000 CrLJ 2452 and (3) Kamal v. State of Haryana, 2004 13 SCC 526.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension and submitted that a serious offence has been committed by the accused-Appellant. He has also submitted that learned Counsel below has rightly convicted the accused-husband for the offence under Section 304B. I.P.C. Therefore, he has submitted that application for suspension of sentence deserves to be dismissed.