AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”) alongwith the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4., Jaipur Metropolitan, Second vide judgment dated 29.06.2026 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2024 (CIS No.217/2024) as under:-
Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹25,000/-; in default whereof, six months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the Postmortem Report of the deceased (Exhibit P.-16) and the statement of Dr. Karni Singh (PW-11) who conducted the autopsy, would submit that the prosecution case that she caused murder of her daughter by hitting her with a cricket bat does not get substantiated inasmuch as cause of death is opined to be asphyxia brought about as a result of antemortem smoothering. He, therefore, prays that the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Heard. Considered.
It is a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein, dead body of the deceased Nikita Singh-daughter of the applicant, was found in a room on first floor of their residential house. After appreciating the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that at the time of incident, only the deceased and the applicant were in the house. As per the Postmortem Report, there were as many as twenty seven injuries on the body of the deceased including injuries on her head and face. The defence version of suicide was specifically negated by the learned trial Court and it was found to be a case of culpable homicide. Conduct of the applicant as also of her husband namely Bhajanlal (PW-23) was also found to be suspicious inasmuch as he has tried to save the applicant. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the applicant has furnished false defence. Since, only the deceased and the applicant were in the house at the relevant time, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also employed. The aforesaid findings have not been demonstrated to be suffering from any illegality or perversity at least, prima facie.
Their Lordships have, in the case of Rajesh Upadhyay Vs. The State of Bihar and Another: Criminal Appeal No.5585/2025 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8736/2025) decided on 18.12.2025, held as under:-
6.1It is also the settled principle that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of prosecution. The presumption of innocence of the accused which is a principle applied in criminal jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue.
6.5The dictum that the benefit of suspension of sentence, if at all to be granted in the cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it has to be only in exception cases, is well settled in the catena of judgments. In Vijay Kumar v. Narender & Ors.6 it was observed that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the court should consider relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which crime is alleged to have been committed and the seriousness of offence. The view was reiterated in (2002) 9 SCC 366 Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.7, Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Marashtra8, Gomti v. Thakurdas & Ors.9."
In the backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law and looking to the nature and gravity of allegation found to be proved against the applicant by the learned trial Court, we are not inclined to allow the suspension of sentence application.
Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed.