Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sundari vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 April, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
(1 of 4) [SOSA-186/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 186/2022
1. Sundari W/o Babu Lal, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Kharchiya Police Station Anandpur Kalu Dist. Pali. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
2. Sushila D/o Babu Lal, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Kharchiya Police Station Anandpur Kalu Dist. Pali. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. R. Bishnoi
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
20/04/2022
Heard on application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed for the applicants Sundari & Sushila.
Learned counsel for the applicants would argue that the
conviction of the aforesaid two applicants is based only on
conjecture and surmises and without their being any cogent
reliable evidence of involvement of these applicants in murder of
Babulal.
Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that it is
not the case where only the family members are involved, but
according to prosecution story, number of persons were involved
in murder of Babulal including outsiders and the conviction has
(2 of 4) [SOSA-186/2022]
resulted against other accused, who are not the members of the
family. The prosecution has failed to establish live link between
the applicants and motive of murder.
Further, no evidence has been led by the prosecution linking
the applicants in the alleged conspiracy with the other accused
from whom weapon of offence has been seized. According to him,
in these peculiar circumstances, the conviction of the applicants
only on the principle embodied under Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act and the circumstances explained hereinabove in
which the deceased died, deserves to be suspended.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence and submits that the dead body
of Babulal was found in the premises of his own house which was
occupied by the present applicants. As per postmortem report, it
was homicidal death. As the applicants were at home, it was for
them to explain, how Babulal sustained fatal injuries and died
homicidal. The failure is on the part of the applicants, which
clearly points out that they are guilty and therefore they have
been convicted.
Taking into consideration the submissions of the parties and
that the conviction of the applicants is passed on the basis of
circumstantial evidence and not on the basis of direct evidence but
on the solitary circumstance that applicants have failed to explain
as to how Babulal died and further, taking into consideration that
there are other accused, who are not resident of the same house,
but outsider and that, from the applicants no other incriminating
recovery has been made nor cogent evidence of involvement of
the applicants along with other co-accused in alleged conspiracy is
found on record, therefore without commenting on the merits and
(3 of 4) [SOSA-186/2022]
demerits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of
the applicants.
Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence is
allowed and it is directed that the substantive jail sentence of
applicants - Sundari W/o Babu Lal & Sushila D/o Babu Lal shall
remain suspended till the final disposal of the present appeal
provided they execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
each along with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court for their appearance before the trial Court on
30.05.2022 and whenever called upon to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(1) That he/she/they will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(2) That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence,
he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their 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(s) to the trial
court.
The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial
(4 of 4) [SOSA-186/2022]
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ
48-nidhi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
