Kapil Narwal S/O Jagjeevan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6345 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.764/2020

                                          In

                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 977/2020

Kapil Narwal S/o Jagjeevan Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Harijan     Basti    Nayapura        Sardar       Ki    Taal       Wali    Gali,   Near
Chauthmata Mandir PS Nayapura Kota Raj. (At Present In
Central Jail Kota)
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Eliyas Ali
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

                                       Order

10/11/2021

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

The appellant has filed the appeal along with

application for suspension of sentence.

The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1, Kota

(Raj.) in Sessions Case No. 199/2017, by which the appellant has

been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and

sentenced to maximum term of ten years.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this

(2 of 3) [CRLAS-977/2020]

case. There is no sufficient or cogent evidence on record to

connect the appellant with the crime. There is no reliable evidence

of demand of dowry and cruelty against the wife of the appellant.

The appellant has been sentenced to maximum term of 10 years

of imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B IPC and he has

already served about four years of sentence. Hearing of the

appeal may consume considerable time. There are several

contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence. PW-3-

Dileep Chauhan (father of the deceased) has stated in his cross-

examination that now he has entered into compromise with the

family of the appellant. Now, he does not want any proceedings

against them.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application

for suspension of sentence and has submitted that during trial the

appellant was not on bail. The wife of the appellant died an

unnatural death by burning from Kerosene within seven months of

her marriage with the appellant. The marriage of the appellant

was solemnized on 18.02.2017 with the daughter of the

complainant and she died in unnatural circumstances on

09.09.2017. During those seven months, she lived for three to

four months in her parental house due to harassment caused and

demand of dowry made from the father of the deceased. It has

further submitted that the evidence of PW-1-Baby (mother of the

deceased), PW-3-Dileep Chauhan (father of the deceased), PW-4-

Rajdileep Chauhan (brother of the deceased) and other witnesses

PW-2-Jawahar Lal, PW-5-Vijay Chauhan and PW-6-Sunita have

also fully supported the prosecution case. On the basis of the

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-977/2020]

statement of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has

established the charges against the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the

evidence available on record carefully.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned

counsel for the appellant, evidence available on record and overall

facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon

detailed merits of the case, this Court does not deem it just and

proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence

is dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

Sunita/21

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)