Ram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17573 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 561/2021

Ram Singh S/o Shri Kalu Ram @ Kaliya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Sevana, Banswara Kotwali Police Station, Banswara. (Lodged In District Jail, Banswara)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mridul Jain Mr. Bhagat Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

24/11/2021

The instant application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking

suspension of sentences has been preferred by the appellant-

applicant Ram Singh S/o Shri Kalu Ram, who has been convicted

and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 27.01.2021

passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions

Case No.45/2016:

Offence under Sentences                        Fine               Sentence     in
Section                                                           lieu of default
                                                                  of payment of
                                                                  fine
302 IPC             Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6        Months'
                                                  Addl. SI
325/149 IPC         7 years' R.I.              Rs.3,000/-         1 Month's Addl.
                                                                  SI
323/149 IPC         1 year's R.I.              Rs.1,000/-         7 days' Addl. SI



                                           (2 of 5)                    [SOSA-561/2021]


427/149 IPC         2 years' R.I.              Rs.1,000/-         7 days' Addl. SI
148 IPC             2 years' R.I.              Rs.1,000/-         7 days' Addl. SI
447/149 IPC         1 month's SI               Rs.500/-           3 days' Addl. SI

(All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.)

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application

for suspension of sentences as per which, the appellant-applicant

has remained behind bars for the last more than five years.

Shri Jain, learned counsel representing the appellant-

applicant urged that there are grave contradictions in the

statements of the material prosecution witnesses. The FIR

(Ex.P/26) was lodged by Verseng (PW.1) on 25.03.2016 wherein

fifteen persons were named as assailants who had entered into

the house of the complainant and assaulted the inmates. In this

FIR, it is further alleged that the complainant's cousins Maniya S/o

Shri Rajesh and Dilip S/o Shri Kanji came to save them on which,

they were beaten by Kailash, Dhulji and Ramsingh by iron rods.

Shri Jain pointed out that Suraj @ Surya, Kailash @ Keliya, Dhulji,

and Sukhlal @ Hukla were convicted by the trial court by the very

same impugned judgment for the offence punishable under

Section 325 IPC and the sentences awarded to them have been

suspended by this Court. Drawing the Court's attention to the site

inspection plan (Ex.P/2), Shri Jain urged that the place where

Maniya received the injuries is far away from the house of the

complainant and that as a matter of fact, none of the

eyewitnesses were in a position to see the assault made on

Maniya. On these submissions, Shri Jain craves acceptance of the

instant application for suspension of sentences and urged that the

(3 of 5) [SOSA-561/2021]

appellant deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the

appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's

counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact

that the incident where, the deceased Maniya was assaulted, took

place besides the canal which is at a significant distance from the

house of the complainant where the initial assault took place.

As per the site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) and the statements

of the material prosecution witnesses, the place where Maniya was

assaulted is not visible from the house of the complainant. Most of

the material prosecution witnesses viz. Varseng (PW.1), Indra

(PW.2), Rajeng (PW.3), Govind (PW.4), Sewa (PW.7), Smt. Lila

(PW.8) and Smt. Kesar (PW.10) admitted that they heard a hue

and cry and then rushed towards the direction where Maniya had

been assaulted. One lacerated wound and six other blunt weapon

injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased Maniya by the

Medical Officer Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW.11), who prepared the

postmortem report (Ex.P/13). Therefore, the possibility of the

eyewitnesses having reached the place of the incident after the

assault was over cannot be ruled out. There is a grave contraction

in the prosecution case regarding the weapon held by the

appellant because in the FIR (Ex.P/26), it was categorically

mentioned that he was armed with a sword. Apparently, no injury

was caused to anyone from the complainant party including the

deceased Maniya by a sharp weapon. In this background, we are

of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and

(4 of 5) [SOSA-561/2021]

plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. He is in

custody for last more than five years. Hearing of the appeal is

likely to consume time.

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 learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Banswara vide judgment dated 27.01.2021 in Sessions

Case No.45/2016 (CIS No.58/2016) against the appellant-

applicant Ram Singh S/o Shri Kalu Ram 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 03.01.2022 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 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-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

(5 of 5) [SOSA-561/2021]

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.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

                                    37-Sudhir Asopa/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)