ORDER CRL.M.B. 828/2022 1. By this application the appellant seeks suspension of sentence pending hearing of the appeal. 2. The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the learned Trial Court and awarded life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant and his family members were charged for offences punishable under Section 304-B/498- A/34 IPC and in the alternative charge of 302 IPC was framed against the appellant. The appellant, his brother and parents have all been acquitted by the impugned judgment for offences punishable under Sections 304B/498- A/34 IPC as no harassment for dowry much less soon before the death was proved. No charge for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of 34 IPC was framed against the family members. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that as per the opinion of the post-mortem doctor the cause of death was hanging. This opinion of the post-mortem doctor was subsequently confirmed by a Board of Doctors exhibited as Ex-16/C-1 according to which also the death was due to hanging. He further states that no charge for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was framed against the appellant. Learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has based his conviction on an uncorroborated, tutored statement of the appellant and the deceased who was one and half year old at the time of the incident and thereafter was all through in the custody of the complainant. The complainant in his first statement made no specific allegations against the appellant and his brother despite asking of the SDM. The appellant was not present at home when the incident took place. After coming back he come back from the clinic, broke the latch of the room and found the deceased hanging. The complainant i.e. father of the deceased who was an Advocate on reaching Delhi in his first statement stated that on 16th March, 2011 his wife received a phone call from Abhishek stating that his wife has passed away and she has committed suicide. He along with his wife immediately came to Delhi. His daughter Devyani got married to Abhishek on 5th July, 2007 and she was harassed regularly by her family members and due to this harassment the husband and brother-in-law committed murder of his daughter. He along with his wife immediately came to Delhi. His daughter Devyani got married to Abhishek on 5th July, 2007 and she was harassed regularly by her family members and due to this harassment the husband and brother-in-law committed murder of his daughter. On the statement Ex.PW- 18/1 of the complainant, the SDM also notes his observation that the complainant was asked about the harassment to the deceased, but he did not mention any such incident. It may be noted that the FIR was registered on a detailed type written complaint given by the complainant after a period of 35 days of the incident. 4. In the detailed complaint given by the complainant on 21st April, 2011 he stated that he married his daughter to the appellant Abhishek and at the time of marriage there was no demand and both her daughter and the appellant used to do private practice. His daughter was a physiotherapist. The appellant was residing with his brother in the house and the parents used to come off and on to Delhi and that thereafter a demand of ?3 lakh was made. He further stated that his daughter was harassed for demand of dowry and that on 16th January, 2011 his son-in-law left his daughter at Karvi who stayed with him till 11th February, 2011. Though his daughter was not ready to come back, still the appellant was making phone. The complainant and his wife made her understand. The complainant brought his daughter at Delhi on 11th February, 2011. On 16th March, 2011 he received the said information that his daughter Devyani has died due to hanging. Even in this detailed type-written complaint given after a period of 35 days there is no mention whatsoever about the statement of the minor daughter of the appellant and the deceased, who was then aged one and a half years, that she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased, strangulating her and thereafter hanging her, though the minor girl was in the custody of the complainant when the complaint was given. 5. 5. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant disbelieving the opinion of the post-mortem doctor and the subsequent opinion of the board of doctors that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and all other documents and convicted the appellant on the statement of the minor daughter of the victim who was at the time of deposition aged 8 years and had been leaving with her maternal family members who was examined as PW-25. The daughter stated, 'Name of my mother was Devyani Vaish. On asking as to what she has to tell to the Court; witness stated Papa ne pehle mummy ko dande se mara, phir gala daba diya, phir pankhe pe latka diya.' As noted above, no previous statement of this child was recorded. The daughter was one and a half years old at the time of incident and since than is in the custody of the complainant when she left. 6. We have gone carefully through the post-mortem report as per which there is no mark of any injury by danda or of strangulation. The only external injury on the deceased was ligature mark 24 cm long, reddish brown extending around the neck; 10 cm below the right mastoid process, 9 cm below the chin and 5 cm below the left mastoid process. There was no extravasation of blood in the head nor in the neck, nor was hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage broken and were found in tact. There was no fracture or any other injury either internal or external on the deceased. Based on this ligature mark, the finding of post-mortem doctor/ PW-6 was that cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging, which opinion was further reiterated by the Board of post-mortem doctors vide the subsequent opinion Ex. PW- 16/C-1. 7. Indubitably, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a child witness, however as a rule of caution the said testimony should be corroborated. PW- 16/C-1. 7. Indubitably, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a child witness, however as a rule of caution the said testimony should be corroborated. However in the present case the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC there being no evidence on record that the appellant committed the murder of his wife except the version of the minor daughter, who at the time of incident was one and a half years had left the company of the appellant and joined the company of her maternal grand-parents and was for the first time examined in Court after more than six years of the incident. 8. Considering the evidence on record and the fact that the appellant has undergone nearly 4 years, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to grant of suspension of sentence as also for the reason no charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against him and in case it is found that the deceased died of hanging and the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be converted to one under Section 306 IPC. Consequently, the sentence of the appellant is suspended pending hearing of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, further subject to the condition that in case of change of residential address and/or the mobile phone of the appellant during the period of suspension of sentence, the same will be intimated to this Court by way of an affidavit. The appellant will not leave the country without the prior permission of this Court during the pendency of this appeal. 9. Application is disposed of. 10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.