Anoop S/O Charan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5829 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
                          No. 239/2021

                                      IN

               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 185/2018

Anoop S/o Charan Singh R/o Chapar Mohalla, Kasba Kumher,
Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur. At Present In Sevar
Jail, Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2.      Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Parsadi Lal, R/o Chhapar Mohalla
Kumher, PS-Kumher, Dist Bharatpur
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with Ms. Savita Nathawat For Complainant(s) : Mr.Yogesh Singhal with Ms. Firoz Akhtar For Stated : Mr. Javed Chaduary, Add. G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment / Order

23/10/2021

1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant-appellant that

the alleged incident took place at 9.30 pm on 15.03.2016. FIR was

lodged on 17.03.2016. In the FIR, no overt act was assigned to

the applicant-appellant rather it was mentioned that applicant-

appellant alongwith 3-4 other persons attacked the deceased and

gave beating with lathi and iron rod. Thereafter, charge-sheet was

filed only against the present applicant-appellant and in the

(2 of 3) [SOSA-239/2021

statement of eye witnesses, it is mentioned that applicant-

appellant hit the deceased with his boot. As per the injury report,

there is only one injury sustained by the injured on his head which

is coming up to the face and is of the size 4 cm x 3 cm. The

deceased died on 19.03.2016 i.e. after four days of the incident. It

is further contended that the fact is that the deceased fell and got

injured and he was not even taken to the hospital on the same

day. It is also contended that the doctor in cross-examination has

admitted that injury sustained by the deceased could have been

caused by a fall.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the

complainant have vehemently opposed the second application for

suspension of sentence. It is contended that all the eye witnesses

have named the applicant-appellant as the assailant and all the

witnesses have stated that the applicant-appellant gave beating to

the deceased with his boot. It is also contended that applicant-

appellant has remained in custody during trial and the case is well

established by the statements of all the witnesses.

4. We have considered the contentions.

5. Initially, the case of the complainant was that the applicant-

appellant alongwith 3-4 other persons tried to rob the deceased

and when he objected, they gave beating to him with iron rod and

sticks, thereafter, charge-sheet was filed only against the

applicant-appellant and the story of the prosecution as narrated in

the statements given by the witnesses, it was mentioned that the

applicant-appellant was the only person who gave beating with his

boot on the head of the deceased. There is delay of two days in

(3 of 3) [SOSA-239/2021

lodging of FIR and the story narrated in the FIR was changed by

the prosecution witnesses. There is only one injury of size 4 cm x

3 cm sustained by the deceased which can be caused by a fall, as

admitted by P.W. 13-Dr. Deepali Pathak.

6. Taking note of all the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the fact that applicant-appellant has remained in

custody for more than five years, at this stage, we deem it proper

to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-

applicant-appellant in Sessions Case No.61/2016 CIS No.690/2016

shall remain suspended if the applicant-appellant furnishes a

personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together

with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court

to the effect that he shall appear before this Court as and when

called upon to do so.

                                    (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J                                       (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

                                   NIKHIL KR. YADAV /4









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)