Nainu Singh @ Naina Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15547 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 563/2021

Nainu Singh @ Naina Singh S/o Sh. Maisoor Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bado Ki Rel, Kukda, P.s. Bheem, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

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

Order

06/10/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to

correct the name of the jail in the cause title in the Court today.

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-applicant Nainu Singh @ Naina Singh S/o Maisoor Singh,

who has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide the

judgment dated 17.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.23/2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the

application for suspension of sentence.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and

the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the

impugned judgment and the record.

(2 of 5) [SOSA-563/2021]

Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing

the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently urges that the

entire prosecution case, which is based on circumstantial evidence

is false and fabricated. The appellant has been implicated in this

case without there being any evidence to connect him with the

alleged crime. The entire sequence of recoveries, on the basis

whereof the appellant has been convicted, is fabricated. The

incident involving murderous assault by sharp weapon on the

deceased Laxman Singh took place on 13.01.2019. The dead

body of Laxman Singh was found lying, with cut wounds on his

neck, left cheek, and left ear, just besides the road going towards

the village Badon Ki Rail. The appellant's house is nearby and

thus, the investigating agency pointed a finger of suspicion on the

appellant without any basis whatsoever. The appellant was

apprehended on the very same day, i.e. 13.01.2019, but he was

shown arrested on 15.01.2019. He has been convicted on the

basis of the recoveries of blood stained clothes, blood stained

sword and the trail of blood going from the place, where the dead

body was recovered to the house of the appellant. Mr. Rajpurohit

took us through the evidence of the Investigating Officer Mr.

Laburam (P.W.18) and pointed out that the I.O. took no steps to

get the so-called trail of blood secured on 14.01.2019. The

samples of the so-called blood stains were collected in gauzes on

15.01.2019. The sword was shown recovered from the house of

the appellant on 15.01.2019, whereas the Investigating Officer

had already searched the house on 13.01.2019 itself. He drew the

court's attention to the statement of Charan Singh (P.W.1), the

first informant, who clearly stated in his evidence that the sword

was recovered by the police officers on the very day of the

(3 of 5) [SOSA-563/2021]

incident, i.e. on 13.01.2019 itself. He also urged that Dau Singh

(P.W.2), the motbir witness, who is the nephew of the deceased,

admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was

apprehended by the police officers on the night of 13.01.2019, but

the sword was kept lying in the room. It was brought out and

shown to the villagers. The witness also admitted that he signed

all the recovery documents at the police station on 20.01.2019

and that Nainu Singh, the appellant herein, was never taken

anywhere by the police officers for effecting recoveries. Mr.

Rajpurohit also drew the court's attention to the statement of the

other Panch witness Narayan Singh (P.W.9), being the brother of

the deceased Laxman Singh, who too admitted in his cross-

examination that he never accompanied Nainu Singh to any place

after the incident. He did not go to the house of Nainu singh after

the incident. He could not say as to what was a gauze bandage

and that he signed all the memos at the police station on

20.01.2019. Mr. Rajpurohit, thus, urged that the evidence of

recoveries on the basis whereof the appellant has been convicted

in this case is nothing but a sheer piece of fabrication and hence,

the appellant deserves indulgence of bail in this case.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant.

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

that the incident was reported to the police on 13.01.2019 at

11.22 a.m. The house of the appellant is allegedly near the

location from where the dead body of Laxman Singh was

recovered. The Investigating Officer visited the house of the

appellant on 14.01.2019, but he did not taken any steps to collect

(4 of 5) [SOSA-563/2021]

the blood stains from the trail of blood, which he allegedly saw

from the location of the dead body to the house of the accused

appellant. The recoveries were shown to have been effected on

15.01.2019, but both the Panch witnesses, namely Dau Singh

(P.W.2) and Narayan Singh (P.W.9) admitted that they signed

these documents at the police station on 20.01.2019. Dau Singh

(P.W.2) stated that the accused was apprehended by the police on

13.01.2019, whereas the arrest memo (Ex.P/11) was prepared by

the I.O. on 15.01.2019. In this background, apparently the steps

taken by the Investigating Officer while collecting the evidence

against the accused appellant are tainted. The case of the

prosecution is based purely on the circumstantial evidence.

Admittedly the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased

Laxman Singh.

In this view of the matter, the appellant has available to

him, strong and plausible grounds to assail the impugned

judgment. The appellant has remained behind the bars for last

more than 3 years. There is no possibility of early hearing of the

appeal.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of

facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion

that this is a fit case for release of the appellant-applicant on bail

by suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court

during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the 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 Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide

judgment dated 17.03.2021 in Sessions Case No.23/2019 against

the appellant-applicant Nainu Singh @ Naina Singh S/o Maisoor

(5 of 5) [SOSA-563/2021]

Singh 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 08.11.2021 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 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

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.

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


                                    20-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)