Sugreev Singh S/O Shri Bachan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3751 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

    D.B. Criminal Misc. III Suspension of Sentence Application
                            No.570/2021
                                       in
               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 453/2016

Sugreev Singh S/o Shri Bachan Singh, R/o Nawalpura, Police
Station Baseri, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) (At present serving
his sentence at Central Jail, Bharatpur)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Anshuman Saxena
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, AGA



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                    Order

16/08/2021

The instant third application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC is preferred on behalf of the appellant-

applicant Sugreev Singh S/o Bachan Singh, who has been

convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence

under Section 302 IPC vide the judgment dated 06.04.2016

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baadi, District

Dholpur in Sessions Case No.51/2013.

The office objection regarding pendency of the second

application for suspension of sentence is over-ruled because the

said application was rejected by this court vide order dated

29.01.2019, which has erroneously been transcribed in the file of

first application for suspension of sentence. While rejecting the

said application by the order dated 29.01.2019, this court

(2 of 4) [SOSA-570/2021]

observed that the first application for suspension of sentence filed

on behalf of the appellant was kept pending in the expectation

that the appeal itself would be heard and decided within a period

of one year. However, the appeal could not be decided because of

pendency of older appeals. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made

on behalf of the appellant was turned down with a direction to

hear the appeal at the earliest. A period of nearly two years and

seven months has passed since then, but the appeal could not be

taken up for hearing, whereupon, this successive application for

suspension of sentences has been filed on behalf of the accused

Sugreev Singh.

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen to argue the

matter orally and does not propose to file a formal reply to the

application for suspension of sentences.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant vehemently

and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and

fabricated. He submits that the appellant has remained behind

bars for nearly seven and half years with no possibility of hearing

of the appeal in near future. He urged that the only witness, who

has been portrayed to be an eye-witness of the incident, is

Shankar (P.W.9), who is the brother of the deceased. The incident

took place on 19.04.2012, wherein it is alleged that the appellant

alongwith co-accused Deewan and two other persons took away

the deceased Parmal on some false pretext. He was taken near

Angadpura School and was shot to death. In the FIR (Ex.P/12),

three persons Ramveer Singh (P.W.1), Brajeshi (P.W.2) and Kamal

Singh (P.W.5), were named as persons having knowledge of the

incident, but they did not support the prosecution case and were

declared hostile. The prosecution projected that Shankar (P.W.9),

(3 of 4) [SOSA-570/2021]

being the brother of the deceased, saw the incident. However, his

name was not mentioned in the FIR. In his evidence, Shankar

alleged that he saw the accused persons Evarn @ Tai, Sugreev,

Deewan, Pradhan, Kalwa and Pintu taking Parmal with them.

These accused persons were allegedly armed with lathis, Kattas

(countrymade firearm). He followed them from a distance of one

and half fields. They were forcing Parmal to compromise the

dispute, but when he refused, Sugreev and Deewan allegedly fired

gunshots killing Parmal at the spot. In cross-examination, the

witness was put to pertinent questions, wherein he admitted that

the police came to the spot, but he did not tell anything to them.

The 161 CrPC statement of this witness (Ex.D/1) was recorded on

23.04.2013, i.e. after 4 days of the incident. The first informant

Smt. Julie (P.W.12), wife of the deceased, admitted in her cross-

examination that Shankar was at Delhi on the date of the incident

and that she called him, whereupon he came down to the village

on the next day. No weapon was recovered from the accused

appellant during investigation. In this view of the matter, we are

of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and

plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. He has

been in custody for nearly seven and half years. The appeal has

not been taken up for hearing even once.

In this background and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a

fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused

appellant during the 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, Baadi,

(4 of 4) [SOSA-570/2021]

District Dholpur vide judgment dated 06.04.2016 in Sessions Case

No.51/2013 against the appellant-applicant Sugreev Singh S/o

Bachan 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.50,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.09.2021 and

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

conditions indicated below:-

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

2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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 in a separate file. Such file be

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

the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this

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 does not appear before the trial

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

Court for cancellation of bail.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

                                   Pramod/









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)