Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangu Singh vs State on 14 January, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D. B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 367/2020
Mangu Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Bagrasar,
Dist. Nagaur, Presently Residing Near Rani Ji Temple, 3rd B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
(Lodged In Jodhpur Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Counsel
assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit
For Respondent(s) : MR. B.R. Bishnoi, A.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
14/01/2021
Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this
application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the
matter orally.
Heard learned Senior counsel Shri Purohit assisted by
Mr. Kapil Purohit representing the applicant-appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and
the material available on record.
This is second application for SOS filed on behalf of the
appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced as
below vide judgment dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro in
Original Sessions Case No. 39/2015 :-
(2 of 4) [SOSA-367/2020]
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.50,000/- 01 month SI
Imprisonment
Section 498-A IPC 03 years' SI Rs.10,000/- 01 month SI
Section 201/34 IPC 01 year SI Rs.10,000/- 01 month SI
The appellant-applicant herein is in custody from
08.09.2013. The first application for SOS filed on behalf of the
appellant-applicant was dismissed as not pressed by this Court on
22.08.2017. The appeal has not been taken up for hearing even
once thereafter.
The fervent contention of learned Senior counsel Shri Purohit
assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit is that ex facie the finding recorded
by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the appellant-
applicant strangulated his wife Smt. Suman to death is perverse
on the face of the record. He urges that the trial court has
recorded categorical finding to the effect that the prosecution
could not establish that the deceased Smt. Suman was being
harassed or humiliated on account of demand of dowry soon
before her death. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was
acquitted from the charges under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He drew the Court's
attention to the deposition of P.W. 13 - Dr. Alkendra and urged
that the medical officer, categorically stated that the cause of
death of Smt. Suman was asphyxia by hanging. He, thus, urges
that there being total lack of evidence on record to show that the
homicidal death of Smt. Suman was caused by strangulation, the
conviction of the appellant-applicant for the offence under Section
(3 of 4) [SOSA-367/2020]
302 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained. On these grounds, he fervently
implored the Court to accept the application for SOS.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant-
applicant. But he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that
the prosecution evidence totally lacks on the aspect of harassment
meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon
before her death and with this conclusion, the accused-appellant
was acquitted by the trial court from the charges under Section
304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
On going through the evidence of P.W. 13 - Dr. Alkendra, it is
clear that the doctor has given categorical opinion that there were
no signs of strangulation on the dead body and the cause of death
of Smt. Suman was asphyxia by hanging.
In this background, we are convinced that the appellant-
applicant has strong grounds so as to assail the impugned
judgment of conviction.
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 sentences awarded to the appellant-
applicant, during pendency of the appeal. Hearing of the appeal is
likely to consume time.
Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro vide judgment
dated 22.10.2016 in Original Sessions Case No. 39/2015 against
the appellant-applicant - Mangu Singh, S/o Bhanwar Singh,
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal
(4 of 4) [SOSA-367/2020]
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 Judge for his
appearance in this court on 15.02.2021 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.
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
13-Inder/Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
