RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of two appellants namely Ram Gopal and Vidya Devi, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B IPC to imprisonment for life.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were on bail during trial of the case and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them, Appellant No. 1, Ram Gopal and Appellant No. 2, Vidya Devi, both are 75 years and 70 years of age respectively, which is clear from their memo of arrest itself. The incident took place on 26th June, 2007 at 10.00 A.M. and Parcha Bayan of the deceased, Usha Devi was recorded immediately by concerned S.H.O. at 11.30 A.M., in presence of a medical jurist, wherein she alleged the incident to be of accidental nature. However, subsequently, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate on 21st July, 2007, wherein she alleged that her husband was demanding dowry and at the time of incident, there was no one, except her husband. She also levelled allegation of demand of dowry against her mother-in-law, but that was in respect of two days earlier to the date of incident. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was specific allegation about demand of dowry and other ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC against husband, namely Sunil Kumar, who has also been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, but he has not moved any application on his behalf, as he was in judicial custody during trial also and since the date of his arrest, he is in jail. It is also submitted that both appellants were not residing with deceased and accused Sunil Kumar since long. In this connection, he referred the statement of Investigating Officer, who admitted that these appellants were residing in other village with their other son. He, therefore, submitted that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be just and proper, in the interest of justice that their sentence of imprisonment may be suspended during pendency of the appeal.