Bhiyanram @ Jayantilal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2699 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2699 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhiyanram @ Jayantilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2022

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani

(1 of 4) [SOSA-335/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 335/2021

1. Bhiyanram @ Jayantilal S/o Sh. Babulal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Jogi,

2. Suresh @ Suriya S/o Shri Mirkhana, B/C Joti aged about 32 years;

Both R/o Village Malwada, P.S. Raniwada, Dist. Jalore (Raj.). (Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

16/02/2022

The instant application for suspension of sentences under

Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellants-

applicants Bhiyanram @ Jayantilal S/o Sh. Babulal and Suresh @

Suriya S/o Sh. Mirkhana, who have been convicted and sentenced

vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case

No.62/2013 (CIS No.221/2014). Their conviction and sentences

are as under:-


Offence      for Substantive               Fine and default sentence
which            sentence
convicted
Section 302/34 Life                        Fine of Rs.20,000/- and in
IPC            imprisonment                default of payment of fine, to
                                           further undergo 20 months
                                           additional           rigorous


                                         (2 of 4)                 [SOSA-335/2021]


                                           imprisonment
Section 397/34 Seven     years' Fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
IPC            rigorous         default of payment of fine, ten
               imprisonment     months additional rigorous
                                imprisonment.

All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case regarding the alleged murder of

Bhutaram is purely based on circumstantial evidence. In the FIR

(Ex.P/11) a semblance of suspicion was made on the matrimonial

relatives of Bhutaram. During the course of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer claims to have arrested the appellants and

the co-accused Tejaram and acting in furtherance of the

informations provided by the accused-persons, a mobile phone

instrument alleged to be that of the deceased and his silver

'Kadas' and 'ear studs' were recovered. On a perusal of the

statement of the Investigating Officer Satyadev Hada (P.W.7), it is

clear that the mobile phone was recovered in furtherance of the

information provided by the co-accused Tejaram. Regarding the

ornaments as well, the initial information (Ex.P/37) was recorded

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, at 5:00 pm at the instance

of the co-accused Tejaram. The informations (Ex.P/38 and

Ex.P/39) which were recorded at the instance of the two accused-

appellants bear the time as 5:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. respectively.

Manifestly, thus initial information leading to the discovery of

ornaments is attributed to the co-accused Tejaram. Other than

recovery of the ornaments referred to supra, there is no evidence

whatsoever so as to link the two accused-appellants with the

crime.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the

appellants-applicants have valid and substantial grounds for

assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely

(3 of 4) [SOSA-335/2021]

to consume time. Thus, this court is of the view that it is a fit

case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellants-applicants by

suspending the sentence awarded to them 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

Bhinmal, District Jalore vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 in

Sessions Case No.62/2013 (CIS No.221/2014) against the

appellants-applicants Bhiyanram @ Jayantilal S/o Sh. Babulal and

Suresh @ Suriya S/o Sh. Mirkhana 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 16.03.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.