Moti Lal vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 18393 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 783/2021

Moti Lal S/o Sheokaran, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Kulchasar, P.s. Pallu, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Presently Undergoing Sentence At Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

03/12/2021

The instant application for suspension of sentences

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred by the appellant

applicant Moti Lal S/o Sheokaran seeking suspension of sentence

awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Nohar, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 11.08.2020 in

Sessions Case No.1/2016, whereby the appellant was convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine

of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to

undergo one year's additional imprisonment.

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply

to the application for suspension of sentence and proposes to

argue the matter orally.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits

that the appellant's case is in no manner distinguishable from that

(2 of 4) [SOSA-783/2021]

of the co-accused Shivlal @ Shivla, Rajendra Kumar @ Vajir and

Pratap Nath @ Ram Pratap, whose applications for suspension of

sentences have been accepted by this court vide order dated

22.11.2021. He, thus, urges that the appellant-applicant deserves

indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the material available on record.

While deciding the applications for suspension of

sentences filed on behalf of the co-accused Shivlal @ Shivla,

Rajendra Kumar @ Vajir and Pratap Nath @ Ram Pratap by order

dated 22.11.2021, this court made detailed consideration of the

material available on record. The applications were accepted by

making the following observations :-

"It is an admitted case that the incident involving assault on the deceased Raju @ Rajkumar took place on 19.08.2015 at about 11.30 PM. The police got prompt information of the incident which was entered in the Rojnamcha entry No.936 (Ex.P/36A) dated 19.08.2015 at 11.45 PM. In this report, no presence of any witness who might have seen the incident, is noted. The injured Raju was immediately taken to and was got admitted at the CHC Rawatsar by Shri Sandeep Saharan (PW-2) the 108 Ambulance driver. This witness, was though declared hostile but he did not state about the presence of the so-called eye- witnesses at the place of the incident. Constable Ranveer Singh reached the CHC Rawatsar at about 11.45 pm. When he was cross-examined, he admitted that he stayed at the hospital for about half an hour but no one associated with the victim, gave him any oral information of the incident nor was any written

(3 of 4) [SOSA-783/2021]

report submitted to him. As per the site inspection plan (Ex.P/12), the incident took place in front of Sweet Garden Hotel. The ambulance driver clearly stated that the hotel people helped to lift the injured to the ambulance. No one from the hotel was examined in support of the prosecution case. The FIR (Ex.P/11) came to be registered as late as on 20.08.2015 at 04.00 pm. There is merit in the argument of the defence counsel that the delay in lodging of the FIR is quite significant and is likely to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution story. Even in the postmortem report (Ex.P/1), the person who identified the deceased, was Devilal and not the first informant Anil Kumar (PW-4)."

In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of

the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and

plausible grounds for assailing the impugned Judgment. Hearing of

the appeal is likely to consume time. The appellant has remained

in custody for the last nearly 6 years.

In this view of the matter and, having regard to the

facts and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just

and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant,

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 No.1,

Nohar, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 11.08.2020 in

Sessions Case No.1/2016 against the appellant-applicant Moti Lal

S/o Sheokaran, 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

(4 of 4) [SOSA-783/2021]

Judge for his appearance in this court on 03.01.2022 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.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                        (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

                                    25-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)