Rajasthan High Court
Samsu And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No.
1244/2020
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 319/2010
Aabid S/o Shri Imrat, Resident of Village Rasulpur, P.S. Sikrai,
District Bharatpur
----Accused Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Azad Ahmed, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
20/07/2021
This 2nd suspension of sentence application has been
filed under Section 389 CrPC.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
matter. He further submits that sentence of the co-accused
Samsu S/o Shri Imrat, against whom same nature of allegations
were levelled, has been suspended by this Court vide order dated
27.5.2011 in D.B. Cr. Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No. 484/2011 in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 319/2010. There is no
evidence as to who caused fatal injury to the deceased. In this
way, the case of the accused applicant is akin to that of co-
accused person. The case of the accused applicant would not
travel beyond Section 304 Part I IPC. He further submits that
(2 of 3) [II SOSA No. 1244/2020 in CRLA-319/2010]
accused applicant and the deceased are close relatives. This is a
case of circumstantial evidence and there is not sufficient evidence
against the accused applicant, which connects him with the
alleged offence. He further submits that after rejection of the 1st
suspension of sentence application of the accused applicant vide
order dated 27.5.2011, the custody period of the accused
applicant has been increased and by now he has remained in
custody for about 14 years with remission. Most of the prosecution
witnesses including PW-10 Ismale (lodger of the FIR) have turned
hostile. As per site plan (Ex.P/7), the place from where the dead
body was recovered was not in the exclusive possession of the
accused applicant. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take long
time, hence his sentence may be suspended.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State
has opposed the same. He submits that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits
that the deceased received number of injuries and injury no. 3
and 4 were grievous in nature. Hence, the sentence of the accused
applicant should not be suspended.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material
on record more particularly in view of the fact that sentence of co-
accused Samsu has already been suspended by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.5.2011 in D.B. Cr. Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application No. 484/2011, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, we
are inclined to suspend the sentence of the accused applicant.
Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the
(3 of 3) [II SOSA No. 1244/2020 in CRLA-319/2010]
accused applicant Aabid S/o Shri Imrat by the trial court vide
judgment dated 24.2.2010 in Sessions Case No. 58/2009 shall
remain suspended during the pendancy of the appeal, provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two
sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this
Court on 20th August, 2021 and thereafter as and when called
upon to do so.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DILIP KHANDELWAL /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
