Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh S/O Modulal vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.1051/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1702/2021
Mukesh S/o Modulal, R/o Badauda Thana Badauda District
Sheopur Madhyapradesh (At Present Accused Appellant Confined
In Central Jail, Kota)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
23/11/2021
1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellant has filed the appeal along with application for
suspension of sentence.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Court of
Additional Session Judge No.5, Kota (Rajasthan) in Session CIS
No.12/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for
offences under Sections 363 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to
maximum term of ten years.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to
dispute between the appellant and his wife. The victim is brother-
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-1702/2021]
in-law of the appellant, who has been examined as PW-7. He has
stated that the appellant with intention of causing death pushed
him in the well, from where he was rescued by other persons but
this prosecution story is a result of an after thought. There is no
injury on the body of injured as per statement of PW-12-
Parmanand. The Investigating Officer-PW-11-Vijendra Singh has
stated in his cross-examination that the fact of pushing Lekhraj in
the well was not narrated to him by any witness but it was
narrated by victim himself only. He has further admitted that in
the video recording of the place of occurrence, Mukesh is not
seen. During trial, the appellant was on bail. Now, he is in custody
from the date of passing of judgment i.e. 23.09.2021. Decision of
the appeal may consume considerable time.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the
evidence available on record carefully.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for
suspension of sentence.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel
for the appellant, overall facts and circumstances of the case but
without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court
deems just and proper to allow the application for suspension of
sentence.
8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-
appellant Mukesh S/o Modulal shall remain suspended till disposal
of this criminal appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided
the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1702/2021]
Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance in this
Court on 3rd January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Sunita/18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
