The court suspended the sentence, acknowledging the prima facie case for appeal due to lack of independent corroboration of witness testimonies regarding dowry demands.

1. Total four persons, including the present appellant, the husband of the deceased housewife, were placed in a sessions trial to answer charges for the offences punishable under S.498A / 302/304 - B / 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code . While all the three relations of this appellant were acquitted from all the charges brought against them, the present appellant, however, convicted under S.304 - B / 498A / 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, 3 years and 3 years respectively thereunder and to pay fines with default clauses.

2. Challenging the said order of conviction, this appeal has been preferred and after its admission, now the appellant has approached this Court for suspension of sentence.

3. Mr. Sudipta Moitra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contends that only two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.3, the parents of the victim lady made the allegation that soon before her death, the accused person demanded dowry. He further submits that there is no independent corroboration and only the person, who does not belong to the family of the parents of the victim, namely, P.W.2, has no direct knowledge about such demand and whatever he disclosed, are hearsay in nature and completely inadmissible evidence. He further submits that if at all, the allegation is accepted, the same is identical against all the persons placed on trial but the court below took an erroneous approach and convicted this appellant merely because he is the husband. He also submits that this is a case of term imprisonment and the appellant was all through on bail during trial and he never misused his such liberty. Therefore, he prays that the appellant's prayer for suspension of sentence be considered favourably.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant and since objection was raised vehemently from the side of the State, we accorded an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Neguive Ahmed to file his written objection in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atul Tripathi v. State of U.P. , reported in 2014 (9) SCC 177 , and in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.389 Cr.P.C. but he declined to file the same in writing and intended to resist this application orally on the strength of the available materials on record.

5. He then submits that specific allegation was made against the husband (the present appellant) and not against the others.

6. But going through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, we prima facie find that the allegations made against all the accused are identical about the demand of dowry and torture after marriage.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considered their respective submissions as also the depositions of the witnesses produced today in court by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

8. Now, having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after perusing the impugned judgment and the depositions of the witnesses and considering the findings on which the order of conviction is based and the grounds on which the same is under challenge and also considering the further fact that this is a case of term imprisonment and the appellant was all through on bail during trial and he never misused his such liberty, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case, showing possibilities of success in the appeal, has been made out by the appellant.

9. Accordingly, we direct that pending hearing of the appeal, the order