Rewanta Ram @ Pandiya vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11000 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11000 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rewanta Ram @ Pandiya vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 July, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Manoj Kumar Garg

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 408/2021

Rewanta Ram @ Pandiya S/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Udasar Chhotta, Police Station Pallu District Hanumangarh (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC.

Mr. G.R. Bhari.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

16/07/2021

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 counsel representing the applicant appellant,

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the

complainant. Perused the impugned judgment and the record.

The instant application for suspension of sentences has been

preferred on behalf of the appellant applicant who has been

convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated

01.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.22/2017:

                                         (2 of 4)                     [SOSA-408/2021]


Offences                  Sentences            Fine              Fine      Default
                                                                 sentences
Section 302/34            Life                 Rs.5,000/-        6         Months'
                          Imprisonment                           Additional
                                                                 Imprisonment
324 IPC                   3 Years' R.I.        Rs.1,000/-        1         Month's
                                                                 Additional
                                                                 Imprisonment
323/34 IPC                1 Year's R.I.        Rs.500/-          15           Days
                                                                 Additional
                                                                 Imprisonment

Learned counsel Shri Verma urges that cross-cases were

registered inter-se between the parties in relation to the same

incident. He contends that as a matter of fact, the complainant

party was aggressor and trespassed into the house of the accused

causing injuries to the family members and also outraged the

modesty of the ladies. Shri Verma further submits that as per the

highest case of the prosecution, the allegation of killing Mahendra

by running over the tractor is specifically attributed to the accused

Shrawan Kumar. The applicant was on bail during trial and did not

misuse the liberty so granted to him. He thus urges that the

applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the

appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

representing the complainant have vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions advanced by the applicant's counsel.

They urge that as a matter of fact, the FIR which was registered

against the complainant party, was in relation to the incident

which took place two hours before the incident of the case at hand

and thus, it cannot be termed to be a cross-case. They further

(3 of 4) [SOSA-408/2021]

urge that the applicant appellant was armed with an axe and

inflicted injuries to the deceased and the other members of the

complainant party and therefore, he does not deserve indulgence

of bail.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

As per the statement of the eye witnesses, the allegation of

running the tractor over Mahendra is specifically attributed to the

accused Shrawan Kumar. The witnesses also stated that Shrawan

Kumar first gave an axe blow to Mahendra who fell down and

thereafter, Shrawan Kumar came around with a tractor and drove

the same over Mahendra killing him instantaneously. The appellant

and the co-accused had no overt-role to play in this part of the

incident.

In view of the above, we are of the view that so far as the

appellant applicant is concerned, as there is no specific allegation

against him of inflicting the fatal blow to the deceased, he

deserves to be enlarged on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances

available on record and the bleak chances of early disposal of the

appeal, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the

appellant, during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the instant 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, No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated

01.02.2021 in Sessions Case No.22/2017 against the appellant-

applicant Rewanta Ram @ Pandiya, shall remain suspended till

(4 of 4) [SOSA-408/2021]

final disposal of the aforesaid appeal 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 16.08.2021 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.