Sulochana @ Saroj vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14904 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 893/2022

Sulochana @ Saroj W/o Bittu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Fusewala, Police Station Keshrisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG, with Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

19/12/2022

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

below vide the judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in

Sessions Case No.9/2017 (CIS No.17/2017) :-

Office for which Sentence                Fine imposed           Sentence     on
convicted        awarded                                        default       in
                                                                payment of fine
302 read with Life                       Rs.5000/-              2       months'
Section 34 IPC Imprisonment                                     rigorous
                                                                imprisonment

She has filed the instant application under Section 389

CrPC seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court.

(2 of 6) [SOSA-893/2022]

As per the reply filed by the learned Public Prosecutor,

the appellant has undergone total sentence of 5 years 7 months

by now.

Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Saharan, representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the deceased

Pappu Ram was a man of wild character. He was keeping an evil

eye on the appellant. On the day of the incident, i.e. 24.05.2017,

he came to the house of the appellant and tried to molest her and

force himself upon the appellant and during this process, the

appellant herself received a grave head injury. As per Mr.

Saharan, even if the prosecution case is to be accepted to be true

on the face of the record, the appellant could not have been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and is

entitled to claim benefit of right of private defence. He urged that

the appellant is a young woman and has remained behind bars for

last more than 5 and half years. There is no likelihood of the

appeal being heard in near future. On these submissions, he

implored the court to accept the application for suspension of

sentence and direct her release on bail during pendency of the

appeal.

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's

counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that the deceased

Pappu Ram was residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant. It

was suspected that the appellant and the co-accused Anil were

involved in an illegal extra-marital affair. Thus, being a good

samaritan of the community, he went to the house of the

appellant on the day of the incident and tried to implore the

appellant and the co-accused Anil to stop their immoral acts.

(3 of 6) [SOSA-893/2022]

While the deceased was bonafide trying to advise them, the

appellant and the co-accused Anil inflicted repeated blows on the

head of the deceased, which proved fatal. Thus, the learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not a fit case warranting

indulgence of bail to the appellant.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned judgment and the record.

It may be stated here that the appellant was a young

woman aged 25 years at the time of the incident. A perusal of the

arrest memo of the appellant, which was prepared on 27.05.2017

while the appellant was admitted in the Government Hospital,

Kesarisinghpur indicates that she was found suffering from a head

injury and a bandage was applied thereto. As per the prosecution

story, the deceased Pappu Singh, a man aged about 45 years, was

taking an exception to the alleged immoral extra-marital

relationship thriving between the appellant and the co-accused

Anil (sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. On the fateful

day, i.e. 24.05.2017, it is alleged that Krishna Lal (P.W.2), son of

the deceased, noticed a quarrel going on between the appellant,

co-accused Anil and the deceased Pappu Ram in the night at 10-

10.30 p.m. He rushed to fetch his mother and other relatives,

who came to the spot and at this stage, it is alleged by Amar Lal

(P.W.1) and Krishna Lal (P.W.2), sons of the deceased, that co-

accused Anil inflicted a Kasiya blow on the temporal region of the

deceased, whereas the appellant inflicted blow of a wooden pestle

(used to grind spices) on his head/chest. As a result, the victim

became unconscious and expired soon thereafter. A perusal of the

evidence of Amar Lal (P.W.1) would indicate that he alleged that

(4 of 6) [SOSA-893/2022]

the appellant gave the blow of pestle on the head of his father,

whereas Anil gave a Kasiya blow on his temporal region. He

admitted in his cross-examination that Sulochana also received a

head injury in the same incident and he saw blood oozing from the

wound while his father was being taken to the hospital. Krishna

Lal (P.W.2) alleged that Anil gave a Kasiya blow on the temporal

region of the deceased, whereas the appellant gave blow of

wooden pestle on his head and chest. Specific suggestion was

given to the witness that his father tried to trespass into the

house of the appellant Sulochana and tried to force himself upon

the lady and in this process, she as well as his father received the

injuries. The witness denied the same. Smt. Reshma (P.W.3),

wife of the deceased, stated that Anil gave a Kasiya blow on her

husband's head and Sulochana gave a pestle blow above his ear.

On cross-examination, the witness admitted that her husband

went to the house of Sulochana in the night time suspecting that

some boy was visiting her. Apparently, thus, the defence story

regarding the deceased having gone to the house of the appellant

in the dead of the night is substantiated from the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. The fact that the appellant also received a

head injury in the incident is duly fortified from the evidence of

Amar Lal (P.W.1), Bhupendra Singh, ASI (P.W.10) and the arrest

memo (Ex.P/15). The appellant was a young woman aged about

25 years at the time of the incident and thus, the conduct of the

deceased in going to her house in the dead of the night and

interfering in her affairs was totally unacceptable. As per the

postmortem report (Ex.P/20), the deceased was having a solitary

injury above the ear, which resulted into the fracture of the

temporo-parietal and frontal bone leading to his death. There is a

(5 of 6) [SOSA-893/2022]

doubt as to the injury caused by which of the accused proved fatal

to the victim.

In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the

appellant has available to her, strong and plausible grounds for

assailing the impugned judgment. She is a young lady having two

children and other family members to support. Hearing of the

appeal is unlikely in near future. Hence, this court is of the view

that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-

applicant by suspending the sentence awarded to her by the trial

court during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences

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

sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri

Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated

29.08.2022 in Sessions Case No.9/2017 (CIS No.17/2017)

against the appellant-applicant Sulochana @ Saroj W/o Bittu

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 satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for

her appearance in this court on 23.01.2023 and whenever ordered

to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated

below:-

1. That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

(6 of 6) [SOSA-893/2022]

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 in a separate file. Such file be

registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which

the accused-applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High

Court for cancellation of bail.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    34-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)