Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar And Ors. vs State (Govt.) Of Nct Of Delhi [Along With ... on 26 April, 2005
Author: R.C. Jain
Bench: R.C. Jain
JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.
1. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigours imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and for a period of 2 years rigours imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC vide order of the learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated 14.9.2004.
2. Through the above referred applications, suspension of sentence of the applicants and their release on bail is sought inter-alia on the grounds that the complainant has made two contradictory/inconsistent statements in regard to the manner in which she got burn injuries inasmuch as in the first ever statement made by her on 10.5.2002 i.e. immediately after the incident, the complaint stated that she caught fire accidentally and received burns whereas in the second statement recorded by SDM on 14.5.2002, she implicated the applicants by making allegations of her harassment and torture on account of dowry and the applicants having attempted her murder on 9.5.2002 by poring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. The prosecution story in regard to the date and time of father's knowledge about the burning of her daughter is also inconsistent/improbable. It is urged that there was no cogent and legal evidence brought on record to convict the appellant-applicants for the said charges. It is also leaded that it was the mother-in-law of the victim who got her admitted in the hospital soon after the incident and that the story in regard to the dowry demand and harassment of the complainant at the hands of the appellants is highly improbable. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicants have burnt the complainant because the complainant's father was unable to meet the demands Rs. two lacs fifty thousand made by the applicants.
3. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Khosla learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, learned APP for the State and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.
4. Mr. Khosla, learned counsel representing the appellants/applicants has made a vehement plea for suspension of sentence of the appellants and their release on bail during the pendency of the appeal primarily on the ground that there are many infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution case on the face of which the conviction of the appellants is not likely to be sustained. Besides appeal is not likely to be disposed of in the near future.
5. This Court having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the seriousness of the allegations against the applicants/appellants and the gravity of the offences for which they have been found guilty is of the considered opinion that no good ground is made out for suspension of the sentence of the appellants and their release on bail at this stage.
6. Liberty is, however, granted to mention for fixing the appeal for hearing in the month of July, 2005.
7. The applications are dismissed accordingly.