Radhey Shyam v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The present application has been filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking Suspension of Sentence, till pendency of the appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, as emanating from the record, is that on 05.05.2015 at about 2:15 p.m., an information was received at Police Station New Usmanpur that a woman had been thrown, off stairs, by her husband (appellant herein) at her house situated at Shastri Park, Delhi.

3. Upon reaching the spot, the police officials found a 30-year-old woman lying dead with an injury mark on her neck, later identified by her father, as his daughter, married for about 6½ years to the appellant.

4. Thereafter, the statement of the father of the deceased was recorded, wherein he alleged that the deceased was continuously harassed by the appellant for money, subjected to ill-treatment by her in-laws, and was unhappy in her marriage. On the morning of the incident, the family was informed that she was unwell. Upon reaching her matrimonial home, the father of the deceased noticed an injury mark on neck of the deceased and suspected that she had been killed by her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law.

5. On the basis of his statement, subject FIR under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the IPC was registered. The postmortem indicated the death on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem ligature strangulation. Section 302 of the IPC was accordingly added.

6. Learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A/304B/302 IPC. His co-accused were though acquitted. The appellant has been, inter alia, sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the appeal along with the present application, seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.

8. Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, learned counsel for the appellant, appointed by DHCLSC, seeks suspension of sentence on the ground that the appellant has two minor children who require his constant care and presence. It is further contended that the appellant has no other criminal antecedents and, in view of the same, he is entitled to be released on bail, pending adjudication of the appeal.

9. As per the Nominal Roll, the appellant has undergone incarceration for around two and a half years only.

10. According to learned counsel for the appellant, he had been charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC and in such a situation, he could not have been held guilty, simpliciter, under Section 302 of the IPC. However, such argument lacks merit as keeping in view the evidence led by the prosecution, considering the Post Mortem Report (PW-10/A), recovery of the ligature material at the instance of the appellant as per the Seizure Memo (PW-6/B), the learned Trial Court came to a specific conclusion and held the appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife by strangulation. Even if testimony of the children of the appellant, i.e. PW-17 and PW-18, who though saw the act of strangulation, is disregarded for a moment, there is nothing to indicate that it was a case of suicide and not of strangulation. The testimony of the deceased’s family members, i.e., PW-3, Shri Om Prakash (father of the deceased), PW-4, Shri Rohtash Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-7, Smt. Meera Devi (mother of the deceased) and PW-8, Smt. Reeta (sister-in-law of the deceased), also implicates the appellant and at this juncture, there is nothing on record to suggest that their testimony is untrustworthy.

11. Moreover, the death of the deceased has occurred within seven years of her marriage and under suspicious circumstances, and keeping in view the fact that the appellant has also been awarded a life sentence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence.

12. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.

13. Needless to state, any observation made hereinabove shall not tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the appeal and has been made for the consideration of the present application alone.

14. List in due course.

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J MANOJ JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/rs/kp