The nature and gravity of the offence influenced the Court's decision on the application for suspending the sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Ramesh Kumar S/o Savaji, who has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- vide the judgment dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case No.22/2016.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstances put-forth against the accused-applicant are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. He further submits that since the parents of the deceased-wife were not agreeable for her marriage with the petitioner, therefore, they performed love marriage in the year 2006 and lived a happy married life till the year 2015; sans any complaint of maltreatment. He further submits that deceased-wife sustained an injury on her leg and thereafter, she had been in indisposed condition and thus her demise was a natural death. It is further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since last more than six years and therefore indulgence of bail may be granted in his favour till pendency of the appeal.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail plea while submitting that there are strong and sufficient circumstances to bring home the guilt of the applicant-accused. He further submits that death of Smt.Mathra Devi occurred in the house of applicant-accused, where the spouses were residing. The cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Strangulation denotes the homicidal death and therefore by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence act, the onus has been shifted upon the applicant-accused to convince this Court that under what circumstances the incident had happened.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

5. The appeal is pending for final hearing and going to be heard and decided, therefore, this Court refraining from passing any observation on the merits, as the same may adversely effect the interest of the parties. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him. Thus, the application for suspending the sentence of the applicant-accused is dismissed.

6. Before parting, this Court feels it just and appropriate to direct the Registry to list the appeal for hearing in order of appropriate priority.