Murari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12168 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                No. 261/2021

Murari Lal S/o Nihal Singh Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Gheu, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Lodged At Central
Jail, Bikaner).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.J.S.Choudhary, Sr.Advocate
                                 Mr.Pradeep Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr.Anil Joshi, P.P.
For Complainant             :    Mr.Vikas Bijarnia.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                   ORDER

04/08/2021

The instant application for suspension of sentences has been

preferred by the appellant applicant Murari Lal seeking suspension

of sentences awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated

19.1.2021 in Sessions Case No.13/2018 whereby the appellant

was convicted and sentenced as below:

For offence under Section 1 year's R.I. & fine of Rs.500/-, 323/34 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine, 1 month's S.I.

For  offence        under       Section Imprisonment for Life & fine of
302/34 I.P.C.                           Rs.5000/-,    in    default    of
                                        payment of fine, 2 years' S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2 of 5) [SOSA-261/2021]

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

Shri J.S.Choudhary, learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep

Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Vikas Bijarnia

learned counsel representing the complainant and have gone

through the impugned judgment and the record.

Shri J.S.Choudhary, learned Sr.Counsel assistned by Shri

Pradeep Choudhary representing the accused appellant

vehemently and fervently urges that the entire prosecution case is

false and fabricated. The incident took place in the early night of

17.4.2018. Subhash who was an intervenor in the incident

received the gun shot injury which took place after a sudden fight

and expired whereafter, the Police was informed. The Police

Officers were present at the spot during the entire night but the

members of the complainant party intentionally did not lodge the

F.I.R. to the Police Authorities. He pointed out that the injured

witnesses Rajbala was got admitted in the hospital at about 12.30

in the night but even then, her relatives did not lodge the F.I.R. to

the Police Officers, who had taken the injured to hospital. He

further urges that as per the prosecution case, Rakesh Kaswa was

married to the sister of the appellant Murari Lal and the co-

accused Subhash. There was a dispute between Rakesh and his

wife and thus, the parties were not on good terms. As per the

prosecution witnesses, the appellant and the co-accused went to

the house of Rakesh and were indulging in quarrel with him.

Surendra who lives in the neighborhood came around and tried to

intervene and to quell the fight and during this altercation,

Subhash fired a gun shot which hit Surendra killing him instantly.

Shri Choudhary submits that though the prosecution witnesses

(3 of 5) [SOSA-261/2021]

alleged that the appellant herein was armed with a pistol but

admittedly no shot was fired by the appellant. He also pointed out

that the trial court acquitted the appellant from the charge under

Section 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He thus urges that the

appellant who is in custody for the last more than three years,

deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

E converso, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Vikas Bijarnia

learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's

counsel. They urge that the appellant too was armed with a fire

arm and he had gone to the place of incident with the co-accused

with the premeditated plan to murder Rakesh. Thus, it was

contended that the appellant was clothed with the common object

to commit murder. Nevertheless, the learned Public Prosecutor as

well as counsel for the complainant were not in a position to

dispute the fact that there was no strife or enmity whatsoever

between the accused and the deceased Surendra. As per the

admitted prosecution case, the accused and Rakesh were indulged

in a squabble with each other and Surendra intervened. In this

process, a quarrel flared up and Subhash fired a gunshot from his

weapon which hit Surendra killing him instantly on the spot. The

Police was informed and the team of Police reached at the spot

soon after the incident. The members of the complainant party

were present but they intentionally did not submit any F.I.R. to the

Police officials, who had come to the spot and were investigating

the murder. The F.I.R. was submitted in the next morning. The

allegation of firing the fatal gunshot at Surendra is specifically

attributed to the co-accused Subhash. The appellant herein is in

(4 of 5) [SOSA-261/2021]

custody for the last more than three years. In this background, we

are of the opinion that the appellant has available to him valid and

substantial grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing

of the appeal is likely to consume time. Thus, we are inclined to

suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant and release him

on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 19.1.2021 in

Sessions Case No.13/2018 against the appellant-applicant Murari

Lal S/o Nihal Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of

the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he

executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance in this court on 4.9.2021 and whenever

ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions

indicated below:-

1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the

accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this

(5 of 5) [SOSA-261/2021]

order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal

Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose

relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In

case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High

Court for cancellation of bail.

                                   (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J



                                   /tarun goyal/












Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)