[2025:RJ-JP:29348] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 403/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 498/2025 Basram S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Tiwara Rahuwas Tan Rahuwas Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara District Dausa (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In District Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Amitabh Jatav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant accused- Basram S/o Shri Ramdev in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.02/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalsot Dist. Dausa whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated by [2025:RJ-JP:29348] (2 of 5) [SOSA-403/2025] complainant party. He further referred the statement of PW-3 Kajod (informant), who is brother of deceased and submitted that he has failed to prove demand of dowry soon before death of deceased and cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry. He submitted that unless essential ingredient under Section 304B IPC is proved, a person cannot be convicted under Section 304B IPC. He further referred the statement of PW-45 Dr. Himanshu and submitted that no ante-mortem injuries were found on body of deceased Anita at the time of post-mortem which clearly shows that deceased was not subjected to any torture or cruelty by the appellant. He further submitted that there were two issues; firstly related to dispute about fixed deposit amount and secondly inability have a child though victim was found pregnant at the time of suicide. He further referred statement of PW-42 Surendra Singh and PW-43 Prakash and submitted that there is no evidence except the oral allegations made by complainant. He further submitted that even PW-36 Motilal has clearly stated that the dispute between deceased and appellant is for small family issues and there is no serious dispute between them. He further submitted that rest of the evidence is not supportive for prosecution, and without considering the material accused is convicted. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:29348] (3 of 5) [SOSA-403/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificate along with report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-2 lodged by PW-3 Kajod about harassment and cruelty caused by appellant and other family members for demand of dowry and further death of his sister, who married on 21.05.2013, FIR No. 220/2017 under Section 304B was registered at P.S. Ramgarh Panchwara Dist. Dausa. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Laxman and Basram. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 45 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence though exhibited 5 documents. Learned trial court has acquitted Laxman from charge under Section 304B IPC but convicted appellant accused for offence under Section 304B IPC. 6. The custody certificate clearly indicated that the appellant has undergone 9 months and 21 days against the awarded sentence. During trial, appellant was released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.03.2018 in bail application No.2326/2018. [2025:RJ-JP:29348] (4 of 5) [SOSA-403/2025] 7. We have considered statement of witnesses including statement of PW-3 Kajod. The statement of PW-1 Dr. Anmol Khandelwal, PW-45 Dr. Himanshu and PW-2 Dr. Basram, who conducted post mortem of deceased on 01.09.2017 and prepared post mortem report Ex.P-1 which clearly shows that there were no ante-mortem injuries on body of deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia. 8. We have considered statement of IO PW-41 Rajpal Singh. PW-42 Surendra Singh and PW-43 Prakash particularly cross-examination to know reasons of death. Also considered statement of PW-36 Sarpanch of the village. After considering the evidence, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but the timing of death clearly indicated that it was very early morning on fateful day (01.09.2017). The appellant, who is husband of deceased is supposed to explain the exact reasons of sudden quarrel between him and his wife which forced her to die but he has not explained his conduct particularly last few hours soon before suspicious death of deceased. 9. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that this is a case wherein death of Anita occurred within 7 years of her marriage and that too in her matrimonial home when appellant was present in the house. As regard to dispute between husband and wife is concerned, same is again subject matter to be [2025:RJ-JP:29348] (5 of 5) [SOSA-403/2025] considered at the time of final adjudication but the trial court has believed demand of dowry as stated by some of the witnesses of prosecution including PW-3 and we cannot express any opinion over the issue but certainly this is a serious and grave act wherein this appellant is not entitled to be released on bail (SOS). 10. Accordingly, SOS application preferred by appellant Basram S/o Shri Ramdev is hereby dismissed. 11. List appeal for hearing in February, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /10