Deeparam vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13934 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 678/2021

in

S.B.Criminal Appeal No.1002/21

Deeparam S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Satyaya P.s. Nachana Distt. Jaisalmer. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Anr.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

28/11/2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public

prosecutor on suspension of sentence application. Perused the

impugned judgment and perused the record of the case.

Accused-appellant          Offences          Sentences           Fine          Fine
                                                                               Default
                                                                               sentences
Deepa Ram                  Sections          3 year's R.I.       Rs. 5000/-    Two
                           498A IPC &                                          months
                                                                               RI.
                           304B IPC          7 year's R.I.       Rs.10,000/-   Six
                                                                               months.
                                                                               RI.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that

prima facie the offence under Section 304B IPC is not made out as

there is no cogent and clinching evidence to substantiate the

(2 of 4) [SOSA-678/2021]

allegations that soon before the death of the deceased, she was

subjected to maltreatment for or in connection of demand of

dowry. He further submits that in fact, there was no demand of

dowry. He drew attention of this Court towards the facts of the FIR

Ex.P-1 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the marriage of the

applicant-appellant got solemnized with the deceased fourteen

months prior to her death. The dispute arose in between the

spouses after six months of marriage. In this view of the matter,

Mr. Bhati submits that any allegation of demanding something

after six months of marriage does not come within the definition

of dowry. As per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act 'dowry' means

any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given by

one party to marriage to the other party at or before any time

after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said

parties. However, no such circumstances are emerging in this

case. He further submits that it seems that after six months of

marriage, some discord of common petulance has erupted in

between the spouses and as a consequences thereof the deceased

died. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in

the case of Satvir & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in

AIR (2001) SC 2828. The applicant-appellant is behind the bars

since last two years and seven months and hearing of the appeal

may take long time to come to legitimate conclusion.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and submits that this is a case where death occurred other than

in normal circumstances and that too within fourteen months of

(3 of 4) [SOSA-678/2021]

the marriage, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Court below does not require interference.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case and perused the material available on record, this Court

is of the considered view that present one is a fit case to suspend

the sentence awarded to the accused applicant-appellant.

Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application filed

under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment

dated 6.10.2021 in Session Case No.68/2017 against appellant

Deeparam S/o Puna Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal

of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this

court on 03.01.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the

month of January of every year till the appeal is

decided.

2. That if the appellant changes the place of

residence, he will give in writing his changed

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel

in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address,

they will give in writing their changed address to

the trial Court.

(4 of 4) [SOSA-678/2021]

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also

be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall

not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to

pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said

accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.

(FARJAND ALI),J 88-Arti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)