Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nandlal Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 641/2021
Nandlal Gurjar S/o Kishore Gurjar, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Katunda, P.s. Parsoli, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Umesh Kant Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.R.Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr.Pankaj Gupta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
ORDER
15/02/2022
The instant application for suspension of sentences has been
preferred by the applicant-appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
seeking release on bail during pendency of the appeal by
suspending the sentences awarded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.32/2014
vide judgment dated 17.8.2019 whereby the applicant-appellant
has been convicted and sentenced, as below:
Offences Sentences with Fine Default Sentence
148 I.P.C. 1 year's S.I. with fine of 3 months' S.I.
Rs.5000/-
302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment with fine 5 months' S.I.
of Rs.10,000/-
459/149 I.P.C. 3 years' S.I. with fine of 5 months' S.I.
Rs.10,000/-
3/25 Arms Act 2 years' S.I. with fine of 3 months' S.I.
Rs.5000/-
(2 of 4) [SOSA-641/2021]
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Shri Umesh Kant Vyas learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution
case is false and fabricated. The prosecution allegation that the
appellant fired fatal gunshot killing the deceased Shri Deram is
totally unsubstantiated. Shri Vyas referred to the statement of the
so-called eye-witness P.W.6 Megha Gurjar and pointed out that the
said witness was as a matter of fact cited by the prosecution to
prove the panchnama-lash etc. He gave a totally improved version
and posed himself to be an eye-witness, whereas his statement
was never recorded during investigation as an eye-witness. When
he was cross-examined, he admitted that he was not examined by
the Police during the course of investigation and he did not tell the
Police officials that he had seen Nanda firing the gunshot at
Deram. Shri Vyas criticized the statements of the co-called eye-
witnesses i.e. P.W.12 Vijayram, P.W.13 Sohan Lal and P.W.14
Narayani Devi contending that all these witnesses gave highly
contradictory evidence regarding the fatal gunshot injury caused
to the deceased Deram. Some of the witnesses did not state that
the appellant fired the gunshot whereas the others alleged that
the appellant fired the gunshot from the top of the house of Bhoja
which is nowhere near the house of the complainant party. From
the statement of the medical jurist Dr.Umesh Singh (P.W.27), Shri
Vyas pointed out that the doctor admitted that the gunshot injury
which was caused to the deceased Deram, was as a result of a
close range fire. Since the eye-witnesses alleged that the fire was
made from a significant distance, manifestly, their testimony is not
(3 of 4) [SOSA-641/2021]
reliable. He submits that the appellant is in custody in this case
from 2.1.2015. He is an old man of nearly 70 years. Hearing of
the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds, Shri Vyas
craved indulgence of this Court to suspend the sentences awarded
to the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's
counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact
that the witness Megha was not examined during investigation as
an eye-witness of the incident. Thus, his improved version comes
under a cloud of doubt. The other eye-witnesses referred to supra
have given contradictory evidence regarding the fatal gunshot
fired at the deceased Deram. Some of the witnesses stated that
the appellant fired the gunshot from the house of Bhoja. However,
as per the statement of the medical jurist, the gunshot injury
noticed on the dead body of Deram was caused by a close range
fire because the wound was having marks of blackening.
In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the
appellant has available to him strong and plausible grounds for
assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely
to consume time. The appellant has remained behind bars for last
more than 7 years. Hence, the sentences awarded to the applicant
deserve to be suspended during 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 No.2,
Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 17.8.2019 in Sessions Case
No.32/2014 against the appellant-applicant Nandlal Gurjar S/o
(4 of 4) [SOSA-641/2021]
Kishore Gurjar, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he
executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.80,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 15.03.2022 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.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/ 16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
