Patel Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10186 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 40/2022

Patel Ram S/o Sh. Bhup Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chak 12 Kyd, Khajuwala Police Station, District Bikaner (Confined In District Jail, Jaisalmer)

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

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 50/2022 Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 33 Years, R/ o 12 Kyd, Khajuwala Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner. (Lodged In District Jail, Jaisalmer)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

04/08/2022

Heard learned counsel representing the appellants and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on

record.

The instant applications for suspension of sentences under

Section 389 CrPC have been preferred on behalf of the appellants

(2 of 4) [SOSA-40/2022]

Patel Ram and Vinod Kumar, who have been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 16.07.2021 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case

No.120/2016 (171/2014):-

Offences         Sentences              Fine                   Fine          in
                                                               Default
                                                               Sentences
148 IPC          3 years'    of Rs.2,000/-                     One    month's
                 Rigorous                                      Simple
                 Imprisonment                                  Imprisonment
302/149 IPC      Life                   Rs.10,000/-            One      year's
                 Imprisonment                                  Rigorous
                                                               Imprisonment
324/149 IPC      3   years'  of Rs.2,000/-                     One    month's
                 Rigorous                                      Simple
                 Imprisonment                                  Imprisonment
323/149 IPC      1   year's  of Rs.1,000/-                     Fifteen  Days'
                 Rigorous                                      Simple
                 Imprisonment                                  Imprisonment
4/25 Arms Act    1   year's  of Rs.2,000/-                     One    month's
                 Simple                                        Simple
                 Imprisonment                                  Imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned counsel Shri Bishnoi, submits that this Court has

already accepted application for suspension of sentences filed on

behalf of co-accused Raja Singh and Rajendra Kumar vide order

dated 10.01.2022 in (D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence

Application (Appeal) No.771/2021) and the case of accused

appellants herein stands on a better footing. He submits that knife

was recovered from the accused Patel Ram only whereas, no

recovery was effected from the appellant Vinod Kumar. He further

submits that the appellants are in custody for the last more than

eight years and thus, they deserve indulgence of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants'

(3 of 4) [SOSA-40/2022]

counsel. He urged that two co-accused persons Raja Singh and

Rajendra Kumar, who have been extended indulgence of bail by

this Court, were not named in the FIR. So far as the appellants

herein are concerned, their names and the name of accused

Satpal, were specifically mentioned in the FIR. The witness

Chokha Ram (P.W.2) categorically identified the appellants as

being the assailants in his sworn testimony.

As per the FSL Report (Ex.P/79), the foot moulds which were

collected from the spot, matched with sole impressions of

footwear recovered from the accused. He further submitted that it

is gruesome case wherein, the accused appellants trespassed in

the house of the victims in dead of the night and caused injuries

to Ghamandaram, Nenu Devi and Gomi Devi. Ghamandaram

expired as a result of injuries inflicted to him. He thus, urges that

gravity of allegations attributed to the appellants is very serious

and hence, they do not deserve indulgence of bail in this case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

On the face of the record, the case of the appellants herein is

totally distinguishable from that of co-accused Raja Singh and

Rajendra Kumar, who have been enlarged on bail. The appellants

were named in the FIR and have been properly identified during

the sworn testimony of the witnesses. The allegations attributed

to the appellants are very serious inasmuch as, they trespassed

into the house of victim in the dead of night and caused large

number of injuries to the inmates. Ghamandaram expired as a

result of injuries inflicted to him.

(4 of 4) [SOSA-40/2022]

Thus, looking to the nature and gravity of allegations

attributed to the appellants herein, we are not inclined to suspend

the sentences awarded to them. However, it is hereby, directed

that the appeal shall be listed for hearing in the appropriate order

of priority.

Both the applications for suspension of sentences are

rejected with the above observations.

(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

27 & 28-/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)