$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th October, 2025 + CRL.A. 173/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 295/2025 ABHIJEET ADHIKARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv Choudhary, Mr.Shubham and Mr. Vijit Singh, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Nawal Kishore Jha, APP Mr.B. Badrinath Adv.(DHCLSC) with Mr.Dhruv Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (Oral) CRL.M.(BAIL) 295/2025 1. The present application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the appellant, seeking suspension of sentence and consequent release during the pendency of his appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 04-05.07.2016, at about 02:00 A.M., the appellant committed the murder of his wife, Seema, by strangulating her with the aid of a chunni and after committing the said act, the appellant, with the intent to screen himself from legal punishment and destroy evidence, concealed the clothes of the deceased including the said chunni and her mobile phone, which were material evidence connecting him to the offence. 3. In pursuance thereof, the appellant was charged under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon culmination of the trial, though he was not held guilty for offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. For offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed the appeal assailing the Judgment of Conviction and Order on Sentence along with the present application seeking Suspension of Sentence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has clean antecedents and has been languishing in custody incarceration for a period of more than five years. The appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family, which comprises of his aged mother, approximately 60 years of age, who presently resides alone at their native village in West Bengal, without any means of support or assistance. 6. He submits that the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.PW4/A) clearly records the cause of death as “Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging” and PW-4, Dr. Antara Deb Barma, who conducted the post-mortem, categorically deposed in her cross-examination that it was a case of suicidal hanging, which rules out the prosecution’s allegation of homicidal strangulation. Moreover, the MLC of the deceased (Ex.PW6/A) shows no external injuries on the body of the deceased, which is inconsistent with homicidal strangulation and further fortifies the defense of suicide. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a young man of about 38 years of age, having deep roots in society and being a permanent resident of New Manglapuri, New Delhi, thus, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence or witnesses. In these circumstances, he submits, the sentence awarded to the appellant be suspended till the pendency of appeal. 8. There is a vehement opposition from the side of the State and the Victim. They submit that there are no mitigating circumstances on record which may entitle the appellant to seek suspension of sentence and his application needs to be dismissed, particularly, keeping in mind the gravity of the nature of offence committed by him. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned APP and learned counsel for the victim and perused the record. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that the appeal is of the year 2025 and is not likely to be heard in near future. 11. The perusal of the Nominal Roll reveals that the appellant has undergone incarceration for more than five and a half years and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory, where he is presently working as a Jail Factory Sahayak, earning wages and sending financial assistance to his family. 12. Trial Court record has been furnished in a digitized form and Paper- Book has already been prepared. 13. We have also gone through the autopsy report Ex. PW-4/A, and also the cross-examination of the autopsy surgeon PW-4, Dr. Antara Deb Barma. She, in her cross-examination, has categorically deposed that the ligature mark impression on the neck had been caused by hanging and hanging is always suicidal, until proved otherwise. She also deposed that in the absence of any other associated injuries, other than the ligature mark present over the neck and underlying features of the neck structures on dissection, the manner of death could be concluded as suicidal. 14. Admittedly, when the deceased was brought to the hospital, she was brought dead and there was no external injury present on her person. It is clear from the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Surya of AIIMS hospital. 15. Our attention has also been drawn towards the photographs of the deceased and keeping in mind the above said specific deposition, it cannot be said that the ground taken by the appellant herein is without any substance. 16. Keeping in mind the above-noted aspect and also the incarceration period of the appellant and the fact that there is no likelihood of his appeal being heard in near future, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby suspended on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety in like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and further subject to the following conditions:- i. Appellant shall not leave country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court and shall surrender his passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court. In case, he does not possess any passport, he shall state so before the learned Trial Court, by way of affidavit. ii. Appellant shall provide his residential address, contact details and mobile numbers to the learned Trial Court. In case of any change in their residential address and other contact details, the appellant shall immediately intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit as well as to the concerned SHO/IO, so that as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing, he shall be duly intimated. Such contact details shall also be, in the same manner, furnished with the Registry of this Court and would form part of Appeal-Record. 17. It is, however, made clear that no observation made herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case and has been purely made for consideration of the present application seeking suspension of sentence. 18. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 19. A copy of this Order be sent to learned Trial Court and the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. CRL. A. 173/2025 20. List the matter in due course. VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J MANOJ JAIN, J OCTOBER 10, 2025 neelam/kp/tr CRL.A. 173/2025 Page 1 of 5