Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ridmalram vs State on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 764/2020
Ridmalram S/o Sh. Bhinyaram, Aged About 64 Years, B/c
Vishnoi, R/o Barudi, Police Station Gudamalani, Dist. Barmer
(Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Barmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
04/03/2021
Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel representing the applicant-appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and
the material available on record.
The instant application for suspension of sentences under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant
applicant - Ridmalram, who has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment dated
10.09.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer
in Sessions Case No.155/2016 (23/2017 ADJ No.2, Barmer) (CIS
No.62/2016).
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that as
per the highest allegation set out in the FIR (Ex.P/4) and the
(2 of 4) [SOSA-764/2020]
testimony of the so called eye witnesses PW-3 Bhanwarlal and
PW-4 Hariram, the allegation against the appellant is of inflicting
lathi blow on the head of the deceased Ramchandra. He urges that
this allegation is false and fabricated because no such blow could
have been landed on the head of the deceased in the manner
alleged by the prosecution witnesses as the deceased was driver
of the tractor. He further urges that as per the postmortem report
(Ex.P/16), the injury found on the head of the deceased
Ramchandra was a superficial bruise admeasuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm
which was found to be simple in nature when autopsy was carried
out. He further submits that cause of death of deceased
Ramchandra has been opined to be injury caused by running over
of a vehicle which allegation is specifically attributed to the co-
accused Ashuram. He urges that the appellant-applicant who was
on bail during the trial and has strong grounds to assail the
impugned judgment. He prays that the appellant deserves
indulgence of bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply opposing the
application for suspension of sentences.
Arguing the matter orally, the learned Public Prosecutor
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by
the appellant-applicant's counsel and urges that the applicant-
appellant is the father of the co-accused Ashuram who drove the
tractor over the deceased Ramchandra and thus, the appellant can
be fastened with vicarious liability by virtue of Section 34 of the
IPC. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the injury
attributed by the prosecution witnesses to the appellant-applicant
being a lathi blow on the head of the deceased Ramchandra was
found to be simple in nature.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-764/2020]
The possibility of this injury having been received due to fall
from the running tractor cannot be ruled out. The appellant
applicant - Ridmalram was on bail during the course of trial. He
has available strong grounds to assail the impugned judgment.
Thus, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the
appellant by the trial Court.
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, Barmer, vide judgment dated 10.09.2020 in Sessions
Case No.155/2016 (23/2017 ADJ No.2, Barmer) (CIS No.62/2016)
against the appellant-applicant Ridmalram S/o Sh. Bhinyaram,
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal
and she 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 05.04.2021 and whenever ordered to
do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:-
1. That he 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 will give in writing his 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 in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
(4 of 4) [SOSA-764/2020]
applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
32-Arvind/Mohan-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
