[2025:RJ-JP:49322-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1537/2025 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 249/2025 Virendra Alias Veeru S/o Nahar Singh, R/o Babarpur At Present Ward No. 23 Town Rajakheda District Dholpur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Dholpur) ----Accused/Applicant-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Rinesh Gupta Mr. Sarwat Alam Mr. Gaurav Sharma Mr. Pulkit Raj Mr. Gorang Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/12/2025 The accused-applicant (for short, ‘applicant’) has been convicted vide judgment dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Criminal Sessions Case No.59/2021 CIS No.59/2021 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC and sentenced as under:- Section 498A IPC:- Three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof, six months additional simple imprisonment. Section 304B IPC:- Life imprisonment i.e. upto the last moment of life and a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default whereof, three years additional simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:49322-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1537/2025] Section 201 IPC:- Three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof, six months additional simple imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that his conviction has been recorded on the basis of surmises and conjectures only without any legally admissible evidence available on record against him. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of the prosecution witnesses such as, Ramesh Chand (PW 7), Shripat @ Karua (PW 10), Rajan Singh (PW 11) and Dharam Singh (PW 12), he would submit that they have categorically stated in their deposition that on consumption of poison by the deceased, she was taken to the hospital by the applicant alongwith his other family members, the complainant- father of the deceased alongwith her other family members were informed of the incident, they had reached before her cremation and consented for it without any postmortem and also did not raise any suspicion about her death. Shri Gupta submits that these witnesses were not declared hostile and the prosecution has relied upon their deposition. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the statement of the complainant-father of the deceased Shri Megh Singh (PW 1) and that of her mother Smt. Sanju Devi (PW 17) are full of contradictions, embellishments and improvements on material aspect of the case and when confronted from their statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it was revealed that these witnesses were not reliable and trustworthy. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court erred in [2025:RJ-JP:49322-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1537/2025] recording his conviction relying merely upon their statement. He submits that a perusal of the order impugned reveals that he has been convicted primarily on the premise that a hefty dowry was given at the time of marriage ignoring and overlooking that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment before death with regard to demand of dowry; rather, the evidence on record reveals that the deceased committed suicide on account of trivial domestic dispute with the applicant. Shri Gupta further submits that there is inordinate delay of two days in lodging the FIR which gains importance in view of the deposition of prosecution witnesses such as Ramesh Chand (PW 7), Shripat (PW 10), Rajan Singh (PW 11) and Dharam Singh (PW 12). He also submits that the applicant does not have any other criminal antecedent. He submits that the applicant is in custody for last about four years and nine months and there is no possibility of the appeal being heard in near future. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed and the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court vide judgement dated 22.05.2025 be suspended during pendency of the appeal. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, material on record especially, the statement of the prosecution witnesses such as Shri Megh Singh (PW 1), Smt. Sanju Devi (PW 17), Ramesh Chand (PW 7), Shripat (PW 10), Rajan Singh (PW 11) and Dharam Singh (PW 12), we deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence [2025:RJ-JP:49322-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1537/2025] awarded to the applicant during pendency of the appeal. The sentence awarded to the applicant vide judgment dated 22.05.2025 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/37