Rajasthan High Court
Mohammad Saddam Ali Khan S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 66/2020
Mohammad Saddam Ali Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Jafar Ali
Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Tetrahi, Police Station
Khudabandpur, Distt. Begusharai (Bihar) At Present Sanchiti
Bhawan Ke Pass, Nuri Ka Makan, Lakhan Kotdi, Dargah Bazar
Ajmer Ps Dargah, Distt. Ajmer Raj. (At Present Confined In
Central Jail Ajmer)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
04/02/2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor.
This application for suspension of sentence has been filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-appellant/applicant
who has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order
dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,
2012. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the
respondent-State.
Learned counsel Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav submitted that the
prosecutrix victim has given contradictory evidence regarding the
identification of the accused. He drew the Courts' attention more
particularly to the cross-examination of prosecutrix PW-1, wherein
(2 of 4) [CRLAD-66/2020]
she admitted that she did not know the accused from before. He
also pointed out that no test identification proceedings were
conducted by the Investigating Officer. He further drew Courts'
attention to the statement of medical jurist PW-2 Dr. Sumer Singh
and urged that none of the injuries noticed on the person of the
victim were either grievous or life threatening. He has further
submitted that the accused is in custody for the last four and half
years and hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On
these submissions, learned counsel Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
representing the appellant/applicant implored the Court to accept
the application for suspension of sentence and enlarge the
appellant/applicant on bail during the pendency of appeal.
Per contra, learned Pubic Prosecutor has vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the
appellant/applicant and urged that the appellant/applicant and the
co-accused were trying to force themselves upon the victim who
resisted their advances. Upon this, the appellant and co-accused
over powered the helpless girl and inflicted blade injuries on her
neck. It is only because of the fortuitous circumstances that the
victim survived their assault. She thus urged that the
appellant/applicant does not deserve indulgence of bail during the
pendency of apeeal.
We have considered the submissions advanced at Bar and
also perused the impugned judgment and record. The victim in
her cross-examination agreed to defence suggestion that she did
not know accused from before. The medical officer PW-2 Dr.
Sumer Singh has not stated that the injuries caused to the victim
were either life threatening or were grievous in nature.
(3 of 4) [CRLAD-66/2020]
In this background we are of the opinion that the
appellant/applicant has available to him strong grounds for
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction. The hearing of
appeal is likely to consume time. The appellant has remained in
custody for a period of more than four and a half years.
Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant 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/applicant.
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 Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012
vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 in Sessions Case
No.56/2018 (114/2016) against the appellant-applicant
Mohammad Saddam Ali Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Jafar Ali Khan,
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.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/-
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his
appearance in this court on 3.3.2021 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.
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.
(4 of 4) [CRLAD-66/2020]
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.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Sandeep Rawat/Rajat-04
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
