Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Chota vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1320/2019
Smt. Chota W/o Late Sh. Poonamchand, Aged About 62 Years,
B/c Harijan, R/o Lakhara Bazar, Harijan Basti, Jodhpur.
(Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Vyas and
Mr. Neel Kamal Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
14/01/2021
Learned counsel Shri Vyas and Shri Bohra representing the
applicant appellant vehemently and fervently contend that the
conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial court is
totally illegal and unjustified. The dying declaration (Ex.P/25) of
the deceased Smt. Indra is not reliable. The Magistrate Shri
Mukesh Chawla (PW-13) did not record the dying declaration after
due satisfaction regarding the condition of the victim to give such
statement. They urged that these facts were not considered by
this Court while rejecting the earlier application for suspension of
sentences. They have placed reliance on the Supreme Court
Judgment rendered in the case of M. Radha Hari Seshu vs.
State of Telangana, reported in 2020 Cr.L.R. (SC) 793 in
(2 of 3) [SOSA-1320/2019]
support of the contention that the sentences awarded to the
appellant should be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions
advanced by the appellant's counsel and points out that the dying
declaration (Ex.P/25) was recorded by the Magistrate Shri Mukesh
Chawla after being satisfied regarding the condition of the
deceased to give such statement. It was not essential for the
prosecution to examine the doctor who certified the fitness of the
deceased because the statement was recorded by a Magistrate. In
the dying declaration, the deceased categorically levelled
allegations against the appellant herein of pouring kerosene on
her person and then setting her to fire. He thus urges that the
appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of
the appeal.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
impugned Judgment and the entire record. We have also
respectfully perused the judgment cited by the defence counsel.
Ex-facie, we are of the view that the judgment which has
been relied upon by the defence counsel is totally distinguishable
on facts and law because in the case at hand, the conviction of the
appellant has been recorded for the offence under Section 302 IPC
whereas in the case of M. Radha Hari Seshu (supra), the
conviction of the accused therein was for the offence under
Section 304B of the IPC. There is a distinct allegation of the
prosecution based on the dying declaration (Ex.P/25) of the
deceased Indra that the appellant herein poured kerosene on her
person and then set her to fire.
(3 of 3) [SOSA-1320/2019]
In this background, we are not inclined to accept this second
application for suspension of sentences which is rejected as being
devoid of merit.
The appeal shall be listed for hearing in the appropriate order
of priority.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
5-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
