In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. 25033 of 2008 in
Crl. Appeal No. 1958-SB of 2007
Date of decision: November 28, 2008
Pardeep Barua
... applicant-Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana
for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
An application for suspension of sentence has been moved by
Pardeep Barua (husband) who was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on account of
dowry death of Ratna. Ratna died other than in the normal circumstances
while living at the house of the accused. She has been treated with cruelty
on account of demand of dowry. The main grouse of the applicant-appellant
is that in the dying declaration given by the deceased, she had stated that she
caught fire accidently. The deceased being in her 20s and having died
within two years of her marriage would not have taken such a drastic step
without any rhyme or reason, while ignoring small child in her lap. The
first dying declaration has not come on record and it is still to be established
whether the same was made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind by the
prosecutrix when her husband (the accused) was on her side. In any case,
the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in order to establish her un-
natural death due to maltreatment on account of demand of dowry.
Crl. Misc. No. 25033 of 2008 in
Crl. Appeal No. 1958-SB of 2007 -2-
When once a person is convicted and sentenced accordingly,
then Appellate Court will proceed on the basis that such person is guilty.
The provisions as envisaged under Section 389 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised
as a matter of course merely on the fact that during the period of trial the
accused was on bail and there was no misuse of the liberty does not per se
warrant the suspension of the execution of the sentence and grant bail, but it
has to be considered whether there really existed some reasons to suspend
the sentence and grant bail. It was observed in case Gomti vs.
Thakurdas and others, 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.) 714 that what really was
necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to
suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail.
On analysis of the aforesaid judgment, it transpires that the
Apex Court observed as under :-
“(i) the sentence could be suspended only in exceptional
cases;
(ii) the mere fact that during the period of trial, the accused
was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty does not
per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence.
(iii) the observations given Dharam Pal’s case (supra)
cannot be understood to have laid an invariable rule to be
observed with mathematical precision and sentence could
be suspended at any time and even while admitting the
appeal.
(iv) in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra), it was observed that the
Court while considering the prayer for bail, must look
into the relevant factors i.e. the manner in which the
crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of
the offence and the desirability of releasing the accused
on bail after he has been convicted for committing
serious offence of murder, etc.;”
Crl. Misc. No. 25033 of 2008 in
Crl. Appeal No. 1958-SB of 2007 -3-
The aforesaid observations takes me to settle that the sentence
could be suspended only where there existed reasons for suspending the
same.
Since the application lacks reasons, therefore, the sentence
cannot be suspended. Hence, the application is dismissed.
November 28, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge