The court upheld the conviction under Section 304(B) IPC, emphasizing that the absence of new grounds and insufficient custody period do not justify suspension of sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence passed in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2022 and sentence dated 13.12.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-FTC (CAW), Deoghar, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 06 months.

2. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that although the prayer for suspension of sentence has been dealt with by this Court as would be evident from the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in I.A. No. 844 of 2023 but some facts need to be brought to the notice of this Court and that is the reason the second interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9455 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence as the ingredient of Section 304B is not attracted so far as it relates to the demand of dowry said to be there soon before the incident took place.

3. The ground of custody has also been taken.

4. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has made opposition to such submission by taking the ground that the case of the appellant has already been dealt with in detail by passing order on 01.03.2023 in I.A. No. 844 of 2023.

5. It has been contended that the consideration of the prayer for suspension of sentence since has been dealt with by taking note of the testimonies of P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 who are the close relatives of the deceased who have been considered to be material witnesses and the point of torture and cruelty as alleged to be done by the appellant and the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, hence, the ground which is being shown cannot be said to be substantial ground to be taken into consideration once the testimonies of P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 will be taken into consideration which has already been considered by this Court.

6. So far as the period of custody is concerned, the appellant has only undergone the sentence of about three years.

7. It has been contended by making reference of the sub-paragraph of paragraph-8 of the order dated 01.03.2023 wherein the consideration on the ground of period of sentence already undergone has also been taken note by making reference of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonadhar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [S.L.P (Cr.) No.529 of 2021], that the appellant has not completed half of the sentence, as such, on that ground also there cannot be any consideration.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is evident from the order passed by this Court on 01.03.2023 in I.A. No. 844 of 2023 wherein on consideration of the testimonies of P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, the prosecution version has also fully been supported.

10. The testimonies of these witnesses do clarify that the death took place in the matrimonial house and there is no explanation furnished by the appellant to that effect in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross examination part of these witnesses that what is the reason of the death in view of the fact that the provision of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is applicable the moment the place of occurrence has been admitted to be the matrimonial house.

11. This Court since has considered the prayer for suspension of sentence on merit vide order dated 01.03.2023 passed in I.A. No. 844 of 2023 and that order has not been assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, the ground which is being taken by the learned senior counsel that ingredient of Section 304-B is not applicable cannot be said to be proper ground for considerati