Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jogaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 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. 570/2020
Jogaram S/o Sh. Teja Ji, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Devasi,
Resident Of Ganerao, Police Station Desuri, District Pali (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
17/03/2021
The instant application for suspension of sentences has been
preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Jogaram S/o Sh.
Teja Ji, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide
judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Bali, Camp Desuri, District Pali in Sessions Case
No.55/2011:-
Conviction for Sentences
Offences under
Sections
302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to further
undergo six months' Additional
Imprisonment;
498A I.P.C. Three Years' Simple imprisonment
and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to
further undergo one month's simple
imprisonment.
(2 of 4) [SOSA-570/2020]
It may be mentioned here that earlier the trial court had
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
304B and 498A IPC vide judgment dated 30.05.2017. The said
judgment was assailed by way of S.B. Criminal Appeal
No.859/2017 and this Court decided the appeal vide judgment
dated 03.10.2017. The impugned judgment was set aside and the
trial court was directed to frame alternative charge against the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to conduct
de-novo trial and decide the same as per law. On remand, de-
novo trial was conducted and the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as above vide judgment dated 18.09.2019 for the
offences under Sections 302 IPC and 498A IPC.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel representing the appellant as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment
and the material available on record.
All the paternal relatives of the deceased including Pakka
Ram (P.W.1) (Uncle), Jamni (P.W.11) (Mother) and Bhikha Ram
(P.W.12) (Father) did not support the prosecution case and were
declared hostile.
As per the prosecution case, Smt. Kamla wife of the
appellant herein received injuries from fire on 03.10.2011. She
was initially taken to the local hospital at Desuri from where, she
was referred to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, where the dying
declaration (Ex.P/11) of Smt. Kamla was recorded by the learned
Magistrate on 04.10.2011. wherein she alleged that the appellant
had set her to fire. However, this allegation of the deceased has
been contradicted by the most of the witnesses examined during
trial and so also by the Investigating Officer. The appellant was on
(3 of 4) [SOSA-570/2020]
bail all throughout the trial and even while remanding the matter,
this Court directed that he shall be enlarged on bail.
In view of above and having regard to the entirety of facts
and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration
of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion
that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Bali, Camp Desuri, District Pali vide judgment dated
18.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.55/2011 against the appellant-
applicant Jogaram S/o Sh. Teja Ji, shall remain suspended till 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 17.04.2021
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
(4 of 4) [SOSA-570/2020]
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.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
49-Mamta/Devesh
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
