Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16442
in CRA-D-620-DB of 2015
Decided on: 01.09.2021
Present:
Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate, for applicant-appellant No.4-Maya Kaur.
Mr. IPS Doabia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 389 -- Dowry death – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Initially, applicant was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of rigorous imprisonment for life – Case is covered by Dharam Pal's case, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
(Para 3)
Cases referred:
1. Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600.
***
1. Prayer in this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-appellant No.4-Maya Kaur is for grant of suspension of sentence in case FIR No.77 dated 20.09.2013, under Section 304-B IPC, Police Station Sadiq (Faridkot).
2. As per prosecution case, Paramjit Kaur had died on 19.09.2013 by consuming some poisonous substance on account of maltreatment and harassment as well as beatings at the hands of applicant-appellant No.4 and co-accused for demand of dowry. Ultimately, applicant-appellant No.4 along with other co-accused was held guilty for the commission of such offence and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the ld. Trial court.
3. Learned counsel for applicant-appellant No.4 submits that applicant-appellant No.4 has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that initially, applicant-appellant No.4 was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the court later on. He further submits that applicant-appellant No.4 has already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of total sentence awarded to her i.e. rigorous imprisonment for life, therefore, applying the principle of law set out in the case of Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 passed by Division Bench of this Court, applicant-appellant No.4 may be granted the benefit of suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal.
4. Learned State counsel has not disputed the period of custody and has fairly conceded that the case of applicant-appellant No.4 is fully covered by the ratio of law laid down in Dharam Pal's case (supra).
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the case of applicant-appellant No.4 is covered by the decision in the case of Dharam Pal's case (supra); applicant-appellant No.4 has already undergone 04 years, 07 months and 29 days of sentence and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant-appellant No.4-Maya Kaur is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
6. CRM stands allowed accordingly.
Petition allowed.
********