Rammurti @ Murti Bai W/O Tejraj vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4051 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
                              No.1239/2020

                                       IN

                D.B. Criminal Appeal No.267/2020

Rammurti @ Murti Bai W/o Tejraj, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Peethpur, Police Cheepabarod, District Baran.
(At Present Confined District Jail Baran)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.705/2021

IN

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 263/2020 Ramgop S/o Shri Prahlad, R/o Musen Mataji P.S. Mothpur Distt. Baran (Presently confined at Distt. Jail Baran)

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma in D.B. Criminal Misc. SOS Application No.1239/2020 Mr. Rohan Jain in D.B. Criminal Misc.

SOS Application No.705/2021

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP

(2 of 5)

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

Order

26/08/2021

The instant applications for suspension of sentence under

Section 389 CrPC have been preferred by the applicants-

appellants Rammurti & Ramgop, who have been convicted and

sentenced vide judgment dated 26.11.2020 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Baran (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.172/2016 as

below:-

Rammurti @ Murti Bai & Ramgop Convicted for Sentenced offence under Sections 302 IPC Life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' additional imprisonment.

201 IPC 1 year SI and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's additional imprisonment.

120B IPC 2 years SI and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' additional imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Reply to the applications for SOS have been filed by learned

Public Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused

the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that conviction of

the appellants has been made on the basis of circumstantial

evidence whereas chain of circumstances have not been proved.

One circumstance, regarding last seen evidence of the deceased

(3 of 5)

with his wife accused-appellant Rammurti has been relied upon by

learned trial Court but appellant cannot be convicted on this sole

circumstance regarding cause of death.

It is further submitted that in the impugned judgment, extra

judicial confession by Rammurti before Kanya Bai PW.11 has been

relied upon. As per confessional statement, Rammurti and co-

accused Ramgop jointly killed Tejraj. Rammurti allegedly held on

to his legs and Ramgop strangulated him and after his death, they

disposed of the dead body by throwing it in the river, whereas,

cause of death was shown as ante-mortem drowning in the PMR,

which falsifies the prosecution story regarding extra judicial

confession.

Regarding disclosing the place of occurrence and recovery of

blood stained clothes and on the information of both the accused,

learned counsel for the appellants submits that it has no

evidenciary values. Since such disclosure was made on

26.06.2016, whereas dead body was already recovered on

29.05.2016 itself.

There is no possibility of early decision of the appeals.

Hence, learned defence counsel prayed to suspend the sentences

awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court by impugned

judgment.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

applications seeking suspension of sentences. His contention was

that illicit relation was flourishing between Rammurti, who is wife

of the deceased and co-convict Ramgo. They murdered the

deceased to remove the hindrance coming in their relations. There

is last seen evidence and extra judicial confession of the wife of

the deceased on record to prove guilt against the appellants.

(4 of 5)

From the record, it reveals that the conviction has been

based on the extra judicial confession of Rammurti and last seen

evidence of the appellant Rammurti with the deceased about 15

days before the date of recovery of dead body. Cause of death of

the deceased was ante-mortem drowning. No mark of

strangulation has been found on the body of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellants have raised strong grounds to

be decided while disposing the appeals.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf

of the appellants 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.

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed

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

sentences passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran

(Raj.) vide judgment dated 26.11.2020 in Sessions Case

No.172/2016 against the appellants-applicants Rammurti @

Murti Bai W/o Tejraj in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of

Sentence Application No.1239/2020 and Ramgop S/o Shri

Prahlad in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application

No.705/2021, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided

each of them execute 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 their appearance in this court on

28.09.2021 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.

(5 of 5)

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/do 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

Anil/8&9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)