Rajasthan High Court
Sitaram Saini S/O Bansidhar vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of
Sentence) No.94/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 446/2021
Sitaram Saini S/o Bansidhar, R/o Village Dhavli, Amarsar, District
Jaipur Through Natural Guardian Father Bansidhar Saini (At
Present The Accused Appellant Is Confined In The Juvenile
Home, Jaipur)
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhadia, PP
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
24/08/2021
Heard on the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
The present revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned Children Court
(District and Sessions Judge) Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal
Appeal No.13/2021 titled as: Sitaram Saini v. State of Rajasthan,
by which the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and
order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board
No.2, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.35/2018, by which the accused-
(2 of 4) [CRLR-446/2021]
petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 302, 201 and
120B of IPC and following final order was passed against the
juvenile in conflict with law :-
Þvr% fd'kksj lhrkjke lSuh iq= ca'kh/kj] fuoklh pkpk dkyk
dh <+k.kh ru /koyh iqfyl Fkkuk vejlj ftyk t;iqj dks /kkjk 302] 201]
120&ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds n.Muh; vijk/kksa ds vkjksi esa nks'kh ik;s
tkus ij ekeys ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mDr
fd'kksj dks izR;sd vijk/k ds fy, vyx&vyx nf.Mr u fd;k tkdj
lEiw.kZ ?kVuk Øe dks lexzrk esa ns[krs gq, fd"kksj U;k; vf/kfu;e ds
rgr rhu o'kZ ds fy, lqjf{kr x`g esa Hksts tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA
;fn fd"kksj }kjk iwoZ esa iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa rFkk lEisz'k.k x`g esa
nkSjkus tk¡p vof/k O;rhr dh xbZ gS rks mDr vof/k /kkjk 428 n.M izfØ;k
lafgrk ds rgr vf/kjksfir ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosA fd"kksj dks
lqjf{kr x`g esa Hksts tkus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj izi= cuk;k tkosA
lqjf{kr x`g esa izokl ds nkSjku izfr lIrkg de ls de nks fnu
fd"kksj dh dkmUlfyax dh tk, ,oa fd"kksj v/kh{kd] laizs'k.k x`g vFkok
ifjoh{kk vf/kdkjh ds funsZ"kkuqlkj lkekftd lsok Hkh djsxkA
gLrxr izdj.k esa fd"kksj ds fo:) nks'kflf) vf/kfu;e ds rgr
ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy fd"kksj ds fy, fdlh izdkj dh fujgrkZ dk
dkj.k ugha cusxh vFkkZr fd"kksj dks bl izdj.k dh otg ls i<+kbZ ukSdjh
;k vU; O;olk; gsrq v;ksX; djkj ugha fn;k tk;sAß
It has been submitted on behalf of the juvenile in conflict
with law that the juvenile was on bail during the period of inquiry
as well as during the pendency of appeal and at present, he is in
Special Home, Jaipur since 09.03.2021. It has further been
submitted that he has remained in custody for more than two
years and six months out of total period of three years' sentence.
The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has
not produced any eye-witness during the inquiry. The juvenile has
been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession, which is a
weak kind of testimony. The FIR is delayed by three months, for
which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the
prosecution. The DNA examination of the skeleton has not been
successful. The alleged recoveries on the information of the
(3 of 4) [CRLR-446/2021]
juvenile, are not proved by cogent evidence. The recoveries are
suspicious and the juvenile in conflict with law cannot be
connected with the offence on the basis of such contradictory
evidence. There is no evidence of last seen.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for
the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of
sentence. It has been argued on their behalf that the case rests
on reliable circumstantial evidence including call details and
recoveries on the information of the juvenile, the evidence relating
to location of the juvenile at the time of commission of the offence
as well as recovery of skeleton on the information of the juvenile
in conflict with law.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the record/evidence available on the file carefully.
Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioner, overall facts and circumstances of the case and
the period undergone in custody by the juvenile, but without
commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems
just and proper to allow the application for suspension of
sentence.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to
accused/petitioner Sitaram Saini S/o Bansidhar, shall remain
suspended till disposal of this revision petition and he be released
on bail, provided his natural guardian, father furnishes a personal
bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two surety bonds in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
(4 of 4) [CRLR-446/2021]
Court/concerned Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that he
shall produce the petitioner before this Court on 24.09.2021 and
as and when called upon to do so. His natural guardian shall
ensure that the juvenile in conflict with law maintains good
conduct and behaviour throughout and keep him away from the
company of known criminals.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Hemant/53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
