Ramniwas vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14582 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1908/2022

1. Ramniwas S/o Jagu Ram, Aged 38 Years,

2. Bhagwati @ Bhagi W/o Jagu Ram, Aged 63 Years, Both R/o Thakariyawas, P.S. Deedwana Tehsil Deedwana Dist. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Deedwana).

                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Ramawatar Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
                                Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                Mr. Jagdish Singh



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

12/12/2022

     Heard.
     Admit.

Issue notice to the respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts

notice on behalf of State. Hence, notice need not be issued.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned public

prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant on application

of suspension of sentences No.1133/2022.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that after

16 years of marriage, the wife ended her life by taking a poisonous

substance; there is no immediate cause shown by the prosecution for

committing suicide. Had it been a case of demand of dowry and cruelty

meted out to her, then, she may have made an attempt of taking

(2 of 4) [CRLAS-1908/2022]

extreme step of taking her own life in initial years of her marriage but

she has committed suicide after such a long lapse of time post marriage

and no particular incident has been brought on record which can be said

to be sufficient to abet her to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients

essential to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC are

conspicuously missing in this case. Learned counsel further submits that

the appellant No.1 was serving as a labour abroad and his wife was

living mostly with her in-laws. There is no complaint with the police or

the village Panchayat or in the society regarding cruelty in respect of

demand of dowry; simply because the matter could not be brought

within the ambit of Section 304-B of IPC, the same cannot be converted

into an offence under Section 306 of IPC. Appellants were on bail during

the entire course of trial and there was no complain regarding misusing

of the liberty granted in their favour. The Court below has failed to

appreciate the correct legal and factual aspects of the matter;

appellants have a strong arguable case in their favour. Hearing of the

appeal would take long time, therefore, sentence awarded to the

appellant by the learned trial court may be suspended.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel

for the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant submit that there were consistent complaints regarding

the maltreatment meted out to the deceased at the hands of her in-

laws. On two or three occasions, mediation proceedings were

undertaken by the relatives and the members of the society to which

parties belonged to; there is strong evidence to bring home the guilt of

the accused, thus, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court

needs no interference by this Court.

Considering the submissions, at this stage, this Court refrains

from passing any observations on the niceties of the case as the same

(3 of 4) [CRLAS-1908/2022]

may adversely affect the hearing on the merits of the appeal, however,

considering the overall submissions, the existence of marriage and the

other relevant facts, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for

suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellants.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana,

vide judgment dated 18.11.2022 in Sessions Case No. 06/2014

against the appellant-applicants No.1 Ramniwas S/o Jagu Ram and

No. 2. Bhagwati @ Bhagi W/o Jagu Ram shall remain suspended

till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released

on bail, provided each of them 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 their appearance in this

court on 17.01.2023 and whenever ordered 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 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

(4 of 4) [CRLAS-1908/2022]

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 court, the learned trial

Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

(FARJAND ALI),J 3-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)