Yogesh Kumar & Ors. vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 5366 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   CRL. A. No.259/2010
                                             Date of Decision : 07.09.2012

YOGESH KUMAR & ORS.                                   ...... Appellants
                                  Through:     Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Adv.
                                  Versus
STATE                                                ...... Respondent
                                  Through:     Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.B. No.900/2011

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and enlargement

of the appellant on bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the

learned APP.

3. The appellant No.4 (Yogita) along with her brother, Yogesh and

parents was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A/304-

B/34 IPC and sentenced to RI of 10 years for an offence under

Section 304-B and RI of three years for an offence under Section

498-A.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that Yogita has

been erroneously convicted for an offence under Section 304-B

IPC by the learned Trial Court and accordingly her sentence

deserves to be suspended. In this regard, the learned counsel has

contended that the testimonies of the parents and the Uncle of the

deceased, which have been brought on record, only show that

Yogita was given an amount of ` 20,000/- by the parents of the

deceased, who allegedly had died within two years from the date

of her marriage. It has been contended by him that the other gifts,

which are purported to have been given by the parents of the

deceased at Chuchak (a ceremony performed on the occasion of

the birth of the male child), were given by them to the husband

and not to Yogita. It has been contended that Yogita was married

and living separately along with her husband and two children. It

has been further stated that normally in cases of matrimonial

discord, and more so in cases where the lady has unfortunately

committed suicide, there is a tendency on the part of the

parents of the deceased to enrope the entire family. In this

regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of

this Court in case titled Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. -vs- State

& Ors., 169 (2010) DLT 143 wherein it has been observed that in

such cases, there is a tendency to involve every member of the

family. The learned counsel has contended that Yogita will abide

by all the terms and conditions which the Court may like to

impose and that she has already been in custody for almost thirty

months, therefore, the continued incarceration is going to have

devastating effect, not only on her, but on her entire family, and in

the event of her being proved not guilty, she cannot retrieve the

honour and the time which she has lost because of the continued

incarceration.

5. The plea of grant of suspension of sentence and enlargement on

bail has been vehemently contested by the learned APP. He has

taken the Court through the testimonies of the mother of the

deceased as well as the father and it has been contended that this

is a classic case where immediately after the marriage of the

deceased with the brother of Yogita, was subjected to a great deal

of torture, not only by her husband, parents-in-law, but also by

sister-in-law Yogita. In this regard, it has been stated that the

deceased had written a letter just after a month from the date of

her marriage, where she had specifically made allegation of

cruelty against Yogita, with a view to demand dowry. It has also

been stated that Yogita had admittedly stated to have gone to the

residence of the deceased and accepted an amount of `20,000/- as

a part payment towards the total amount of `5,00,000/-, which

was being demanded by her brother from the deceased. It was

contended that this was a case where life of a young lady was

snuffed out because of the inhuman treatment having been meted

out to her.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. I, prima facie, find that there are incrimating evidence against

Yogita especially in view of the fact that immediately within a

period of ten days from the date of her marriage, the deceased was

subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry. The intensity

of cruelty seems to be so harsh that she not only

contemporaneously, after a month or so, recorded this fact in a

letter sent to her parents through her uncle, but it has also been

stated by the parents of the deceased that within a short span of

10-15 days, Yogita had accompanied her brother and gone to the

residence of the deceased in order to collect the dowry amount,

which was given in cash. If the argument of the learned counsel

for Yogita is accepted that she was living separately along with

her husband and the two children, then she had absolutely no

business to have gone to the residence of the deceased, as has

been stated by the parents of the deceased and which today has a

seal of judicial approval by the First Court.

8. I have gone through the testimonies of the parents and the uncle

of the deceased and the authority cited by the learned counsel for

appellants. I am, prima facie, not persuaded to extend the benefit

of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to Yogita at this stage,

as there are incriminating evidence against her, which have been

brought on record.

9. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and

enlargement on bail is dismissed. Expression of any opinion

hereinbefore is only a tentative opinion for deciding the present

bail application and it may not be treated as an expression on

merits of the case.

V.K. SHALI, J.

September 07, 2012 tp