Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pappa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 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. 304/2021
Pappa Ram S/o Sh. Chuna Ram, Aged About 41 Years, B/c
Muslim, R/o Sanfada, Tehsil And District Jalore (Raj.). (Presently
Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur).
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chuna Ram, by caste Muslim, R/o
Sanfada, Tehsil and District Jalore (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 193/2021
Ramesh S/o Sh. Narsa Ram, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste
Bheel, R/o Village Safada, Tehsil And District Jalore (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah (SOSA No. 193/21)
Mr. Vijay Jain (SOSA No. 304/21)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
19/07/2021
Heard.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire
prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and even the trial
(2 of 4)
court has disbelieved the evidence of extra judicial confession.
The trial court has believed the evidence of last seen PW/15
Sanwla Ram and PW/20 Gobra Ram, however, both these
witnesses only allege that in the evening they saw the accused
going towards western direction and their statements were
recorded by the Investigating officer for the first time after about
three months of the incident. Learned counsel further argued that
the statement of the so called eye witness PW/14 Baga Ram was
also recorded by the Investigating officer after one and half
months of the incident. There is no other connecting evidence
against the present appellants. It is further argued that the
appellants were on bail during the trial, therefore, they may be
enlarged on bail while suspending their sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail
application for suspension of sentence and submitted that there is
evidence of extra judicial confession and statement of eye witness
PW/14 Baga Ram against the appellants, therefore, the appellants
are not entitled to be released on bail.
We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the
parties and perused the judgment of the court below.
It is not disputed that the extra judicial confession was
recorded by the police after three months of the incident.
Likewise, the statement of alleged eye witness PW/14 Baga Ram
was also recorded after about one and half months of the incident.
Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the appellant so also considering the fact that the appellants were
on bail during the trial, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit
case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused
appellants.
(3 of 4)
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the
application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 11.02.2021 in
Sessions Case No. 7/2016 against the appellant applicants (1)
Pappa Ram S/o Chuna ram (2) Ramesh Kumar S/o Chuna Ram (3)
Ramesh S/o Narsa Ram, shall remain suspended till final disposal
of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail,
provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
court on 10.09.2021 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
(4 of 4)
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
37-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
