Smt. Geeta vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 339 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 768/2021

Smt. Geeta W/o Manjeet, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 79 Gb, Anupgarh Police Station, At Present Residing At Lakhuwali, Pilibanga Police Station, Pilibanga, District Sri Ganganagar. (Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Shaktawat through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

06/01/2022

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-applicant Smt. Geeta W/o Manjeet, who has been

convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section

120B IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment vide the

judgment dated 12.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.47/2016.

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the

application for suspension of sentence.

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced

at bar and after going through the impugned judgment and the

record, we find that the case as set up by the prosecution that

Hansraj father-in-law of the appellant was murdered by the co-

(2 of 4) [SOSA-768/2021]

accused Sukhdev @ Sukha in conspiracy with the appellant herein

is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution

proposed the evidence of extra-judicial confession by virtue of the

statement of the witness Smt. Sumitra (P.W.-3) and the call detail

records in order to fix the culpability of the appellant in the crime.

The prosecution claimed that the appellant was involved in an

extra-marital affair with the co-accused Sukhdev and she was in

regular contact with him as per the call records. She talked to him

prior to and after the incident and this, as per the prosecution

constitutes the strong evidence of conspiracy. On a perusal of the

statement of Smt. Sumitra (P.W.-3), it becomes clear that so far

as the allegation of extra-judicial confession is concerned, the

witness clearly alleged that the appellant Smt. Geeta Devi made

the confession while she was detained at the police station. In this

background, the evidence of extra-judicial confession cannot be

relied upon.

So far as the evidence of call detail record is concerned,

suffice it to say that no recordings of the talks allegedly held

between the appellant and the co-accused Sukhdev was proved by

the prosecution. Whether or not the fact regarding the appellant

being in contact with Sukhdev would constitute the evidence of

conspiracy would be for this Court to consider when the appeal is

being finally heard. For the present, it is sufficient to state that the

appellant, who is a woman, is in custody for last more than five

years. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of

the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view

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

(3 of 4) [SOSA-768/2021]

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 No.4,

Bikaner vide judgment dated 12.08.2021 in Sessions Case

No.47/2016 against the appellant-applicant Smt. Geeta W/o

Manjeet 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 07.02.2022 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 his 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 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

(4 of 4) [SOSA-768/2021]

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

Court for cancellation of bail.

                                   (BIRENDRA KUMAR),J                                      (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                   31-/Pramod/Devesh-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)