Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2670 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 842/2021

Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Beejala Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Dorda, Ps Jaswantpura, District Jalore (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

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


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.S. Gill
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

15/02/2022 The instant application for suspension of sentences under

Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant-applicant

Dinesh Kumar who has been convicted and sentenced as below

vide judgment dated 05.12.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Sessions Case No.62/2014:

Offence    Under Imprisonment                  Fine               Sentence        in
Section                                                           default of fine
302 IPC             Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 10 months'                     RI
404 IPC             3 years RI                 Rs.10,000/- 5 months' RI

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application

for SOS.

Shri Gill submits that the evidence of the eyewitnesses PW.3

Jaggaram, PW.4 Dheer Ram and PW.9 Binjaram is not reliable. The

(2 of 3) [SOSA-842/2021]

conduct of these witnesses brings their testimony under a cloud of

doubt. He thus urges that the appellant who is in custody in this

case from the year 2014 deserves indulgence of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the

three eye-witnesses (referred to supra) have clearly alleged that

they saw the appellant strangulating and killing the deceased

Ramesh. This allegation is corroborated by the testimony of

medical Jurist Dr. Raghunandan (PW.12). He thus, urges that the

appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

Ex-facie, we are of the opinion that there is direct evidence

of the eyewitnesses referred to supra to implicate the appellant-

applicant in this case. The veracity of testimony of these

eyewitness cannot be examined at this stage. In addition thereto,

incriminating recoveries were effected from the appellant which

too corroborated the testimony of the eye-witnesses. The

allegation of the eye-witnesses regarding the appellant

strangulating the deceased and thereby killing is substantiated by

evidence of medical jurist Dr. Raghunandan (PW.12).

In this background, we are not inclined to suspend the

sentences awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court.

Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentences is

rejected as being devoid of merit. However, considering the fact

(3 of 3) [SOSA-842/2021]

that the appellant is in custody in this case from the year 2014,

Registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing in the appropriate

order of priority.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 22-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)