Dalaram vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 15381 Raj

(1 of 3) [SOSA-625/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 625/2021

Dalaram S/o Hansaji, aged about 34 years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Dak, P.S. Anadara, Tehsil Revdar, District Sirohi (Raj.).

(Presently lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

04/10/2021

The appellant-applicant has been convicted and sentenced as

below vide Judgment dated 06.04.2017 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in

Sessions Case No.08/2016 (17/2015) (C.I.S. No. 15/2015) :-

Offence             Sentences                   Fine             Fine   Default
                                                                 sentences
U/s 302 IPC         Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 3 months SI

The appellant has preferred this second application under

Section 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentences awarded to

him by the trial court. The first application for suspension of

sentences filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed as not

pressed on 25.07.2019.

(2 of 3) [SOSA-625/2021]

Learned Public Prosecutor has not chosen to file reply to the

application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the

matter orally.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor

and have gone through impugned judgment and original record of

the case.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that

there are material contradictions in the statements of the

prosecution witneses. The prosecution could not prove any motive

on the part of the accused-appellant to commit murder of the

deceased. This incident took place suddenly on account of

unloading stones upon the diputed plot. As per prosecution story,

the weapon axe used in committing the offence was recovered in

furtherance of the information of the applicant-appellant under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act but the place from where the

weapon was said to be recoverd was not in the exclusive

possession of the applicant. In the above circumstacnes, learned

counsel for the appellant-applicant urges to allow the application

seeking suspension of setences.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the

application for SOS submits that the deceased was brutally

murdered by inflicting three grievous injuries on his head and

shoulder. There is ample evidence on record to convict the

accused-applicant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The

nature of injuries on the person of the deceased shows that they

were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature.

Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for

the parties and after carefully perusing the record of the case, we

(3 of 3) [SOSA-625/2021]

are of the view that the trial court has convicted the accused-

applicant on the basis of statements of the eye witnesses and the

nature of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. As per

postmortem report, two deep lacerated wounds were found on the

scalp and one lacerated wound on the right shoulder of the

deceased. There were fractures of frontal, parietal and occipital

bones of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant fails to raise any strong and significant grounds to assail

the jugment impugned passed by the trial court. The grounds

raised by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant needs

meticulous examination of the testimony deposed by the

prosecution witnesses, which is not required at this stage. The

rule of presumption of innocence is not applicable at this stage

In this background, we are not inclined to accept this second

application for suspension of sentences.

Accordingly, this second application for suspension of

sentences filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                          (SANDEEP MEHTA),J




                                    34-Inder/Rahul Arya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)