Raman vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5679 Raj

(1 of 4) [SOSA-128/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 128/2022

In

D.B.Criminal Appeal No.26/2022

Raman S/o Shri Bhura Rawat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Punawara-Fala Rawat, P.s. Dhambola, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R.Chhaparwal, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

19/04/2022

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide

judgment dated 10.2.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.38/2019 (CIS No.38/2019) as

under:-

Under Section One year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In 323 IPC default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment.

Under Section Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In 302 IPC default of payment of fine further undergo six month's additional rigorous imprisonment

(2 of 4) [SOSA-128/2022]

The instant application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been

filed on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence

awarded by the trial court.

Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the

appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire

prosecution case is false. The eye witnesses who have given

evidence against the appellant are all related to the deceased and

their evidence is partisan in nature. The prosecution did not lead

any substantive evidence to corroborate the theory of motive for

the incident as attributed to the appellant in the FIR Ex.P-1. The

recovery of the Sword shown from the appellant is totally

fabricated because the appellant was arrested on 09.03.2019

whereas, on a perusal of the Malkhana Register Ex.P-24, it

becomes clear that the Sword had already been recovered and

deposited in the Malkhana of police station on 08.03.2019. He

further submitted that a suggestion was given by the defence to

few of the eye witnesses that as a matter of fact the witness

Shailesh (PW-8) and the witness Kalu (PW-1) being son and

husband respectively of the deceased Sharda were fighting with

each other and when Sharda intervened, she received the injury

on the neck. Shri Rathore thus, urges that the appellant has

strong case for assailing the impugned judgment and hence he

deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application

for suspension of sentence. He vehemently and fervently opposed

the submissions advanced by Shri Rathore and contended that the

eye-witnesses Kalu (PW-1), Ms. Meena (PW-2), Nilesh (PW-11),

Smt. Shanoo (PW-10) and Shailesh (PW-8) have given clinching

evidence on the aspect that the appellant herein inflicted the

(3 of 4) [SOSA-128/2022]

Sword blow on the neck of the deceased Smt. Sharda. He drew

the Court's attention to the post-mortem report (Ex.P-19) and the

Photographs (Ex.P-27) and pointed out that there is a clear

evidence of the wound on the neck which is apparently caused by

a sharp weapon. He urges that the witnesses Smt. Shanoo (PW-

10) and the child witness Nilesh (PW-11) categorically alleged that

the appellant herein inflicted the blow of the Sword on the neck of

Smt. Sharda. The defence did not put a single question to these

witnesses on this aspect of their testimony, which remained

uncontroverted. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor implored the

Court to reject the application for suspension of sentence.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We

may state that it is a well settled principle of criminal

jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is

convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek

corroboration in the form of motive and recovery. Thus, even if the

argument advanced by Shri Rathore regarding lack of evidence of

motive and the doubtful nature of the recovery is to be accepted,

the fact remains that the eye witnesses referred to supra have

given categoric testimony that the appellant herein inflicted the

Sword blow on the neck of the deceased Sharda which proved

fatal. The allegations of the eye witnesses are duly corroborated

by the medical testimony. Since the incident took place in the

house of the complainant, there was no possibility of any

independent witness having seen the same. The presence of the

eye witnesses in the house cannot be doubted.

(4 of 4) [SOSA-128/2022]

Looking to the nature and gravity of allegations, we are of

the firm view that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of

bail.

The application for suspension of sentence is, therefore,

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

29-RP/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)