JUBEDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentence and proposes to argue the matter orally.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant-appellant Smt. Jubeda, vehemently and fervently urged that the trial court acquitted the accused from the charge under Sec. 304 B IPC. He contended that the Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and the dying declaration Ex.P/34 of the deceased, if seen in entirety, clearly indicate that the accused applicant poured water and tried to douse the fire of the deceased which had been alighted by the co-accused Khanju Khan after pouring kerosene on her body. He urges that the allegation made in the Parcha Bayan and dying declaration that the accused applicant supplied the kerosene container to the principal accused Khanju Khan is nothing but an embellishment and deserves to be discarded because had there been any intention on part of the accused applicant to kill the deceased, then, she would not have made the active attempt to douse the fire by pouring water. He thus urges that the applicant, being a woman, who is in custody since 24/7/2014, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Hari Singh, learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bhati. They urged that there is categoric allegation of the deceased in her Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and dying declaration Ex.P/34 that the accused applicant handed over the container of kerosene to the principal accused Khanju Khan who poured the liquid on the body of the deceased and set her to fire. They thus, urged that the accused appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.