Iiamudeen @ Asimudeen vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5291 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5291 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Iiamudeen @ Asimudeen vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1162/2019

Iiamudeen @ Asimudeen S/o Umardeen, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Qureshi Musalman, R/o Vyapari Mohalla, Jhagarwas, Police Station Degana, District Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Merta).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

24/02/2021

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-applicant Ilamudeen @ Asimudeen S/o Umardeen, who

has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections

302 and 201 IPC vide the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Sessions

Case No.21/2010.

Learned Public Prosecutor has been given ample

opportunity, but he has chosen not to file reply to the application

for suspension of sentence and proposes to argue the matter

orally.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

(2 of 4) [SOSA-1162/2019]

Mr. Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel representing the

appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently contends that there

is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case to

connect the appellant with the alleged crime. He submits that the

appellant was married to Smt. Hakiman about 20 years ago. Four

children were born from the wedlock. No dispute ever arose

between the husband and the wife, which could spur the appellant

to murder Smt. Hakiman. He urges that the prime prosecution

witnesses Ramjo (P.W.1) and Munna (P.W.3) did not support the

prosecution case. The unfortunate incident, wherein Smt.

Hakiman, as a matter of fact, fell down and received a head injury,

which proved fatal, took place on 06.05.2010. The maternal family

members were intimated, who reached the house of the appellant

and the burial of the dead body was made in their presence.

Thereafter the complainant Ibrahim (P.W.4) developed an ill

motive and upon being instigated by some persons inimical to the

appellant, the belated FIR (Ex.P/6) came to be registered on

10.05.2010. He urges that the Medical Jurist, Dr. Mehram Mahiya

(P.W.9) admitted in his cross-examination that the head injury

noticed on the dead body of Smt. Hakiman could be the result of a

fall on a hard surface. He, thus, submits that the appellant, who

was on bail during the course of trial, deserves the same

indulgence during the pendency of the appeal.

The learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant-applicant. However, he too does not

dispute the fact that the star prosecution witnesses Ramjo (P.W.1),

sister of the deceased) and Munna (P.W.3), brother of the

(3 of 4) [SOSA-1162/2019]

accused-appellant, did not support the prosecution case and were

declared hostile.

There is ample evidence on the record of the case to

show that when Smt. Hakiman expired, her maternal family

members, including the complainant Ibrahim, were intimated.

They reached the house of the appellant and the burial of the

dead body was carried out in the presence of the maternal

relatives, who made no objection at that time. The Medical Jurist

Dr. Mehram Mahiya (P.W.9) admitted in his cross-examination that

the head injury, which proved fatal to Hakiman, could be the

result of fall on a hard surface. The appellant was on bail during

trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him There is

no allegation of the prosecution that relations of the appellant and

his wife Hakiman, the deceased, who were married to each other

for 17 to 18 years, were strained. None of the four children of the

appellant and the deceased, who could have given clinching

testimony, was examined in support of the prosecution case.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of

the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view

that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-

applicant by suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial

court during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences

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

sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District

Nagaur vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 in Sessions Case

No.21/2010 against the appellant-applicant Ilamudeen @

Asimudeen S/o Umardeen shall remain suspended till final

disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail,

(4 of 4) [SOSA-1162/2019]

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 Judge for his appearance in this court on 25.03.2021

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.