Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ankit @ Bunty vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 August, 2023

Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni

[2023:RJ-JD:26519-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 66/2023

D.B. Criminal Appeal NO.24/2023

Ankit @ Bunty S/o Virender Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Hakikatpur P.s. Kampil Dist. Farukhbad (UP) Presently Tenant Goluwala Sihagan. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

                                                 ----Applicant
                            Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                              ----Respondent


For Applicant(s)              :    Mr. Nishant Motsara
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

22/08/2023

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been

preferred on behalf of the applicant-appellant Ankit @ Bunty, who

has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated

10.01.2023 passed by learned Session Judge, Hanumangarh in

Sessions Case No.10/2021 (CIS No.10/2021). The appellant-

applicant has been sentenced as under:-

Offences U/S       Sentence                  Fine
498 A IPC          Three years RI            Rs.10,000/- with default clause
304-B IPC          Life                                             --
                   Imprisonment

2. The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced

for offence of dowry death of his wife Rakhi @ Shyam Sakhi and

for cruelty to meet unlawful demand of dowry.

[2023:RJ-JD:26519-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-66/2023]

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application

for suspension of sentences, wherein it is indicated that till date,

applicant-appellant has undergone almost 2 years and 9 months

of imprisonment.

4. While challenging the judgment impugned for suspension of

sentence, Mr. Nishant Motsara, learned counsel for the appellant

has submitted that judgment passed by the trial court happens to

be wrong and erroneous in background of fact that learned trial

court has acted in a very casual manner while convicting and

sentencing the appellant. According to him, the fact that deceased

has been subjected to dowry torture has to be proved by the

prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and this is basic

requirement for the offence but in the present case, the marriage

between the appellant and the deceased was a love marriage and

according to the FIR itself, deceased had entered into marriage

with the appellant on her own free will and even their close

relatives did not attend.

5. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted

the fact that the accused and the deceased were living in a live-in

relationship. It is further argued that deceased has committed

suicide due to mental depression because at the time of her

death, both the children born to her from former husband were

not living with deceased. It is stated that it was on account of

temperament defences and the fact that the parties came from

different backgrounds that the deceased was unhappy and

committed suicide.

6. According to medical evidence, there were no marks of

pressing fingers on the neck of the deceased nor was there blood

[2023:RJ-JD:26519-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-66/2023]

oozing from her mouth, nose or ears. It is further stated that at

the time of alleged incident, the appellant was not present at the

spot and on receiving information of death of his wife, he reached

to the morchery and saw her wife dead. There is no evidence on

record to show that who took the deceased to the hospital,

therefore it is submitted that the learned trial court had failed to

pursue basic ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC. On these

grounds, he implored the Court to accept the application of

suspension of sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

and urged that the appellant has right been guilty for committing

dowry death of his wife.

8. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as

the material available on record.

9. Ex-facie, there is ample material available on record so as to

satisfy the Court that appellant Ankit @ Bunty was living

separately with his wife; that the prosecution case regarding the

accused having murdered Rakhi @ Shyam Sakhi has been

discarded by the trial court and accused was acquitted from the

charge under Section 302 of the IPC; that foundation of the

prosecution case is based on telephonic conversation that

deceased Smt. Rakhi conveyed to her sister Radha Devi (PW-1) on

30.11.2020 that she was being harassed and humiliated by her

husband on account of demand of dowry but admittedly no record

of call details were collected during the investigation by the

Investigating Officer to lend credence to this allegation; that we

[2023:RJ-JD:26519-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-66/2023]

cannot lose sight of the fact that Radha Devi (PW-1) did not state

the mobile numbers of either herself or the deceased; that on

going through the evidence Dr. Rajkumar (PW-4), it is clear that

the doctor has given categorical opinion that there were no signs

of strangulation on the dead body; that Radha Devi (PW-1), Jeetu

Redas (PW-2) and Pappu @ Ramgovind (PW-3) has admitted in

their cross-examinations that deceased and her former husband

Manoj separated only due to love affair between deceased and

appellant; that there is no material available on record to show

that who took the deceased from her house to the hospital; that

even in a case of second marriage without the consent of the

family members of both the parties, there exist element of

demand of dowry on the part of the appellant would require

consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Thus, the

appellant has strong case so as to assail his conviction for the

offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. Appeal is not

likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In this background,

we are of the opinion that the appellant have available to him a

strong plausible grounds for assailing the impugned order.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just

and expedient to suspend the sentence imposed upon applicant-

appellant Ankit @ Bunty during the pendency of the appeal.

11. Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentences filed

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

substantive sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 10.01.2023 in Sessions Case

No.10/2021 (CIS No.10/2021) against appellant-applicant Ankit

@ Bunty shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal,

[2023:RJ-JD:26519-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-66/2023]

provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of

the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on

22.09.2023 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.