Subhash vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18438 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 719/2021

Subhash S/o Nihal Singh Jat, Aged About 26 Years, Village Gheu, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. (Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, 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.

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia

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

Order

03/12/2021

The instant application for suspension of sentences has

been preferred by the appellant applicant Subhash S/o Nihal Singh

Jat seeking suspension of sentences awarded to him by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh

vide judgment dated 19.01.2021 in Sessions Case No.13/2018

whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below: For offence under Section 1 year's R.I. & fine of Rs.500/-, 323/34 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine, 1 month's S.I.

For offence under Section 302 Imprisonment for Life & fine of I.P.C. Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 2 years' S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant,

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

                                             (2 of 3)                     [SOSA-719/2021]



             Mr.     J.S.    Choudhary,           learned           Senior   Advocate,

representing the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently

urged that the FIR was highly delay, the evidence of the eye-

witnesses is not reliable and that the appellant had no motive to

fire the gunshot at Surendra, who was simply intervening in the

matter. He further submits that the gunshot was fired accidentally

because the witness Mukesh tried to snatch the gun from the

appellant. He, thus, craves indulgence of bail for the appellant-

applicant during pendency of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. They urged that

the incident took place in the dead of the night at about 11

o'clock. The FIR came to be submitted in the early hours of the

next morning at about 6 o'clock. It was, thus, contended that

there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. The evidence of the eye-

witness clearly indicates that the appellant was secretly carrying

firearm with him. He reached the place of incident in order to

settle the score and when Surendra tried to pacify the appellant

and his companion, the appellant-applicant herein took out the

firearm and fired the gunshot towards the innocent intervener

killing him instantly. They, thus, urged that the appellant does not

deserve indulgence of bail in this case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned judgment and the record. There is a distinct allegation

of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant herein and the co-

accused Murari Lal armed themselves with firearms and went to

the house of the complainant and hurled insinuations that they

(3 of 3) [SOSA-719/2021]

would kill anyone who tried to stop them. Murari Lal exhorted and

thereafter subhash fired gunshot hitting Surendra. In this view of

the matter, it is clear that the appellant was well prepared to

commit the offence from before. The fact regarding the gunshot

having been fired is corroborated by the empties etc. seized from

the scene of occurrence. Surendra died because of the gunshot

wound as was deposed by the Medical Jurist Dr. Mahaveer Jakhar

(P.W.9). In this background, manifestly, the case of the appellant-

applicant Subhash is distinguishable from that of co-accused

Murari Lal, whose application for suspension of sentences has

been accepted by this court. We make it clear that the

observations made herein are restricted to the disposal of the

instant application for suspension of sentences and would not

prejudice the decision of the appeal, which shall be considered on

its own merits.

The application for suspension of sentences, being

devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

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


                                    22-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)