SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence. Perused the material on record.
(2.) Learned P.P. at the outset submitted that he does not desire to file a written reply to the application for S.O.S. and would be advancing oral arguments in opposition to the prayer for suspension of sentence.
(3.) Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel urges that the appellant was not even present in the house at the time of incident. The petitioner and Smt. Preeti had entered into an inter-caste marriage and there existed hardly any such dispute between them which could instigate the applicant to set fire to his wife Smt. Preeti. Drawing attention of the Court to Ex.P-5 the Parcha Bayan of Preeti recorded by Tehsildar, Mr. Kumbhat urges that in the said statement it is pertinently recorded that the appellant's brother scolded the deceased as to why she has taken such a step. He urges that as a matter of fact the injured was perturbed because she was not able to conceive even after ten years of the marriage with the appellant and that is why she set fire to herself. The appellant is in custody since 2.3.2015 and has strong grounds to challenge the impugned judgment. As per him since hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future, therefore, he prays that the sentences awarded to the appellant deserve to be suspended. Learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant appellant. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the F.I.R. came to be lodged after 5 days of the incident. In the portion E to F of Ex.P-5 the statement of the injured Smt. Preeti recorded by the Tahsildar, it is stated that the appellant's brother scolded her as to why she had taken such a step. The injured received burns only on the frontal part of the body. Thus, the possibility of kerosene having been poured by the victim on her own person before setting herself to fire in order to commit suicide cannot be ruled out.;