Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devendra Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1168/2022
Devendra Kumar Soni S/o Sh. Jaspal Soni, Aged About 29 Years,
B/c Soni, R/o Dullapurkeri, Teh. And Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devender Kumar Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/12/2022
The instant third application for suspension of sentences has
been preferred on behalf of the appellant applicant who has been
convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated
03.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.6/2015:
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
Section 363 IPC 5 Years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1½ Months' S.I.
Section 364A IPC Life Rs.2,000/- 3 Months' S.I.
Imprisonment
Section 365 IPC 5 Years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1½ Months' S.I.
Section 120B IPC Life Rs.2,000/- 3 Months' S.I.
Imprisonment
(2 of 4) [SOSA-1168/2022]
While the appeals were being taken up for hearing on
11.11.2021, learned counsel representing the appellant pointed
out that qua the accused Devendra Kumar and Tarsem Singh, a
fair trial was not held because both these accused were in custody.
They were not provided effective legal aid and numerous
statements were recorded including that of the child victim Master
'J' (PW-2) wherein, no cross examination was conducted on behalf
of the appellant herein and the co-accused Tarsem Singh.
Accordingly, this Court exercised power under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
and directed the trial court to recall the witnesses Pahalwan Singh
(PW-1), Master 'J' (PW-2), Ranjeet Ram (PW-16) and Narendra
Kumar (PW-17) and permit cross-examination from them after
providing the services of Free Legal Aid Counsel to the accused.
Pursuant to the said direction, these witnesses were summoned
and the accused persons were allowed to cross examined them. In
cross examination, the material prosecution witness Pahalwan
Singh (PW-1) admitted that no one told him that the applicant
herein and Tarsem Singh were the kidnappers of the child. The
witness also admitted that for the entire duration of the night,
Devendra kumar was accompanying them and was not with the
kidnappers. The witness also admitted that none of the accused
demanded ransom from him. The child Master 'J' was also cross
examined and he admitted that no one beat him up or wrongfully
confined him. Regarding identification of the accused, the witness
stated that the accused was shown to him at the police station.
Learned counsel Shri Thind submits that considering the
tenor of cross-examination of these two witnesses, it is apparent
that the prosecution case as against the accused would not be
(3 of 4) [SOSA-1168/2022]
substantiated as the witnesses have been totally shaken in their
cross examination. He thus urges that the appellant, who is in
custody since 20.01.2015, deserves indulgence of bail in the case,
during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes
the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Thind.
However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that when
the material witnesses, referred to supra i.e. Pahalwan Singh (PW-
1) and Master 'J' (PW-2) were cross examined, they have virtually
resiled from their earlier allegations as levelled during
examination-in-chief.
In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant
has available to him strong and plausible grounds to assail the
impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near
future.
Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances
available on record and, considering the prolonged custody of the
appellant and the bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal,
we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the
appellant, during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the instant third application for
suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sri Ganganagar, vide judgment
dated 03.01.2018 in Sessions Case No.6/2015 against the
appellant-applicant Devendra Kumar Soni, shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall
be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
(4 of 4) [SOSA-1168/2022]
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 16.01.2023 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 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
10-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
