- (1.) Learned counsel for the convict appellant Shaheedan submits that the appellant is in custody for more than four years and she is entitled for suspension of sentence in view of the first proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the cause of death of the deceased is not the alleged beatings by the convict appellant and the deceased died of cardiogenic shock. The prosecution has intentionally suppressed the report of the medical board, which was brought on record in the defence. No specific allegation has been levelled against the convict appellant. In Panchayat nama also no allegation of demand of dowry has been noted. No sufficient evidence is available on record which may warrant conviction of the appellant. Thus the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularities and illegalities and the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed.
(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition with the submissions that this is a clear case of dowry death within a short span of two years from the marriage of the deceased. In the FIR lodged without any loss of time, specific allegations have been levelled against the convict appellant as well as her son Latif regarding demand of dowry and committing murder of the deceased daughter-in-law of the convict appellant. It is evident from the post mortem report that multiple injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The cause of death may be cardiogenic shock, but all ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stand proved by the ample evidence available on record. Nothing material has been suppressed by the prosecution. Concerned Doctor Siya Ram Meena deposed as per the report of the Medical Board that the reason of death of the deceased was cardiogenic shock. No prejudice whatsoever, has been caused to the defence. The convict appellant was not found fit even for bail during trial. The trial court has analysed and appreciated the evidence available on record in proper and justified manner. The impugned judgment does not suffer with any illegality. The application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected.
(3.) Heard. Considered.;