Bharat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1382 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 496/2021

Bharat Singh S/o Tajang, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Damor Adavasi, R/o Nadey Police Thana Sadar, Dist. Banswara Through His Son Kamal Damor S/o Bharat Singh Age 30 By Caste Damor Adavasi, R/o Ward No 10 Nadey Post Saleya Police Thana Sadar, Dist. Banswara. (Lodged At Dist Jail Banswara)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamboo Singh (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. FARJAND ALI

Order

28/01/2022

The instant writ petition has been filed by the accused

petitioner-Bharat Singh seeksing quashing and setting aside of the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2015

passed by the learned Niyadhikhari Gram Niyalaya Talwara District

Banswara in Criminal Case no.682/2011 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the trial court'), whereby the accused petitioner was

convicted for the accusation of committing offence under Section

279 and 304A of the IPC and was directed to undergo two years

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, for Section 304A

of the IPC, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 20

days additional simple imprisonment and for Section 279 of IPC, 6

months sentence was awarded with fine of Rs.500/- in default of

payment of fine further to undergo 5 days additional simple

(2 of 3) [CRLW-496/2021]

imprisonment vide impugned order. An appeal preferred against

the said judgment has also been rejected by the learned Sessions

Judge, Banswara in criminal appeal No.70/2015 vide judgment

dated 18.08.2021. Since then, the petitioner is languishing in jail.

As per the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Gram

Nayalaya Act, this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the

petitioner challenging the legality, and proprietary of the

judgments passed by both the courts below.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

Gone through the judgment of conviction passed by the

learned Niyayadhikari, Gram Niyalaya Talwara as well as the

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and also

perused the record of the trial.

Admit.

Issue notice.

Heard on the stay application praying for suspension of

sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has a

strong arguable case in his favour. In view of ground raised in the

writ petition, the judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the

eye of law as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

case beyond over shadow of reasonable doubt. He submits that

there is a fine distinction between running a vehicle rashly and

negligently and running a vehicle in high speed. He also submits

that there is no concrete evidence to establish the fact that at the

relevant point of time, the accused petitioner was plying the

vehicle rashly and negligently and as a necessary consequence of

(3 of 3) [CRLW-496/2021]

it, the incident took place, in which, the girl Laxmi succumbed to

the injuries.

Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case as well as the fact that the petitioner had been on bail during

the entire course of trial and course of appeal and he never

misused the liberty granted to him and now he is under

incarceration since 18.08.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to

allow the application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the stay petition is allowed and it is ordered that

the sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated

03.12.2015 in Case No.682/2011 against appellant- Bharat

Singh S/o Tajang shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

present writ petition, provided he executes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this

court on 20.04.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the

disposal of the petition on the conditions indicated below:-

1.That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will

give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to

the counsel in the High Court.

2. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will

give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

Accordingly, the misc. application is allowed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 49-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)