Rajasthan High Court
Ramniwas S/O Shri Gopal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Cr. MISC. SOS (BAIL) APPL. NO.742/2020
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 25/2020
Ramniwas S/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Baran
Khurd, Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bharatpur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Suresh Kumar Sahni with Mr.Ram
Mohan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, AGA
For Complainant : Mr.Balveer Singh Beniwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
ORDER
16/08/2021
The instant application for suspension of sentences has been
filed on behalf of the appellant, who has been convicted and
sentenced by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 20.12.2019
passed in Sessions Case No.24/2015 whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as below:
Convicted for offence under Sentenced
Section
302 r/w 34 IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.20,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo 3 years' R.I.
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act Life imprisonment and a fine of
(2 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
Rs.20,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo 3 years' R.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a reply to the suspension
of sentences application.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the appellant's counsel, learned Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the complainant.
The FIR (Ex.P1) was lodged by Bhagmal, father of Deepchand,
the deceased at the Police Station Halena on 6.12.2014 alleging that
his son Deepchand was forcibly abducted by five accused named
Lipendra, Subhay Singh and Ishwar, who were riding one motorcycle
and on the other motorcycle, the accused Ramniwas and
Chandrabhan had forcibly placed Deepchand in between themselves.
It was also alleged that Chandrabhan and Ishwar were armed with
fire arms. The witnesses Padam Singh and Prasadi claimed to have
seen the deceased being taken away by these accused persons on
the two motorcycles. Ishwar allegedly called the younger son of the
informant namely Rameshwar and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
as ransom. The informant, alongwith Mewaram Gujar went to Moloni
and told the people standing there about the unfortunate event. At
that time, Yadram's son came around and told that a man was lying
dead near his bore-well. The informant and the other persons
(3 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
accompanying him reached the bore-well and saw Deepchand lying
there. On the basis of this report, FIR (Ex.P1) was registered for the
offences under Sections 143, 364A, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Corruption) Act and investigation was
commenced. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a
charge-sheet against three accused namely Chandrabhan, Ishwar
and the appellant herein. Charges were framed against the accused
Chandrabhan and Ishwar for the offences under Section 302 read
with 120B IPC and 364 IPC and in the alternative, 302 read with 34
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, whereas charges were
framed against the appellant for the offences under Section 302 read
with 120B IPC in the alternative 302 read with 34 IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. It is significant to note here that the
trial court did not frame a charge against the appellant for the
offence under Section 364A IPC. As per the post mortem report
(Ex.P20), the cause of death of Deepchand was found to be shock as
a result of gunshot injury. After trial, the trial court has convicted
and sentenced the appellant as above.
Shri Sahni learned counsel representing the appellant
vehemently and fervently urges that the evidence of the two star
prosecution witnesses viz. Prasadi P.W.6 and Padam P.W.7 is not
reliable. Though these witnesses alleged that the appellant herein
(4 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
and the co-accused Chandrabhan were seen forcibly taking away the
deceased Chandrabhan on their motorcycle but the trial court did not
frame a charge against the appellant herein for the offence under
Section 364A IPC. Attention of the court has been drawn to the
Panchnama Lash/Inquest Memo (Ex.P4), wherein the witnesses
Prasadi and Padam are signatories and it was urged that it was not
recorded in the Panchnama that these two witnesses had seen the
accused taking away the deceased on their motorcycle. Shri Sahni
took us through the statements of the two witnesses of last seen viz.
Prasadi P.W.6 and Padam P.W.7 and urges that the evidence of these
witnesses is self contradictory. He further contends that the
appellant is in custody from 12.1.2015. He does not have any
significant criminal antecedents. On these grounds, Shri Sahni
implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of
sentences and direct release of the appellant on bail during
pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, they too are not in a
position to dispute the fact that the appellant is in custody from
12.1.2015.
(5 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
Though the prosecution case is founded on an allegation that
the appellant and the co-accused Chandrabhan were lastly seen by
the two witnesses referred to supra forcibly abducting the deceased
on a motorcycle but the trial court did not frame charge against the
appellant for the offence under Section 364A IPC. Cause of death of
the deceased as per the post mortem report and the evidence of the
medical jurist is a single firearm injury which is not attributed to the
appellant.
In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant has
available to him plausible grounds for assailing the impugned
judgment. The appellant does not have any criminal antecedents as
per the reply filed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
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 Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 20.12.2019
passed in Sessions Case No.24/2015 against the appellant-
applicant Raminwas S/o Shri Gopal, 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 17.9.2021 and
(6 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
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 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.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
tarun goyal/17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
