JUDGMENT : V.K. Shali, J.— (Oral) Crl. M.B. No.900/2011 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the appellant on bail. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP. 3. The appellant No.4 (Yogita) along with her brother, Yogesh and parents was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to RI of 10 years for an offence under Section 304-B and RI of three years for an offence under Section 498-A. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that Yogita has been erroneously convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC by the learned Trial Court and accordingly her sentence deserves to be suspended. In this regard, the learned counsel has contended that the testimonies of the parents and the Uncle of the deceased, which have been brought on record, only show that Yogita was given an amount of Rs. 20,000/- by the parents of the deceased, who allegedly had died within two years from the date of her marriage. It has been contended by him that the other gifts, which are purported to have been given by the parents of the deceased at Chuchak (a ceremony performed on the occasion of the birth of the male child), were given by them to the husband and not to Yogita. It has been contended that Yogita was married and living separately along with her husband and two children. It has been further stated that normally in cases of matrimonial discord, and more so in cases where the lady has unfortunately committed suicide, there is a tendency on the part of the parents of the deceased to enrope the entire family. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in case titled Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. –vs- State & Ors., 169 (2010) DLT 143 wherein it has been observed that in such cases, there is a tendency to involve every member of the family. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in case titled Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. –vs- State & Ors., 169 (2010) DLT 143 wherein it has been observed that in such cases, there is a tendency to involve every member of the family. The learned counsel has contended that Yogita will abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may like to impose and that she has already been in custody for almost thirty months, therefore, the continued incarceration is going to have devastating effect, not only on her, but on her entire family, and in the event of her being proved not guilty, she cannot retrieve the honour and the time which she has lost because of the continued incarceration. 5. The plea of grant of suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail has been vehemently contested by the learned APP. He has taken the Court through the testimonies of the mother of the deceased as well as the father and it has been contended that this is a classic case where immediately after the marriage of the deceased with the brother of Yogita, was subjected to a great deal of torture, not only by her husband, parents-in-law, but also by sister-in-law Yogita. In this regard, it has been stated that the deceased had written a letter just after a month from the date of her marriage, where she had specifically made allegation of cruelty against Yogita, with a view to demand dowry. It has also been stated that Yogita had admittedly stated to have gone to the residence of the deceased and accepted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a part payment towards the total amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was being demanded by her brother from the deceased. It was contended that this was a case where life of a young lady was snuffed out because of the inhuman treatment having been meted out to her. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. I, prima facie, find that there are incrimating evidence against Yogita especially in view of the fact that immediately within a period of ten days from the date of her marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry. 7. I, prima facie, find that there are incrimating evidence against Yogita especially in view of the fact that immediately within a period of ten days from the date of her marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry. The intensity of cruelty seems to be so harsh that she not only contemporaneously, after a month or so, recorded this fact in a letter sent to her parents through her uncle, but it has also been stated by the parents of the deceased that within a short span of 10-15 days, Yogita had accompanied her brother and gone to the residence of the deceased in order to collect the dowry amount, which was given in cash. If the argument of the learned counsel for Yogita is accepted that she was living separately along with her husband and the two children, then she had absolutely no business to have gone to the residence of the deceased, as has been stated by the parents of the deceased and which today has a seal of judicial approval by the First Court. 8. I have gone through the testimonies of the parents and the uncle of the deceased and the authority cited by the learned counsel for appellants. I am, prima facie, not persuaded to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to Yogita at this stage, as there are incriminating evidence against her, which have been brought on record. 9. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail is dismissed. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore is only a tentative opinion for deciding the present bail application and it may not be treated as an expression on merits of the case. _________________