Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Garima Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 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. 895/2021

Garima Vyas D/o Sh. Avinash Vyas, Aged About 31 Years, 824 Jhalamand House Scheme, Near Senapati Bhawan, High Court Colony, Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Leeladhar Khatri, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

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

Order

18/01/2022

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-applicant Garima Vyas D/o Avinash Vyas, who has been

convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section

120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide the

judgment dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No.64/2011 (CIS 46/2014).

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the

application for suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Facts in Brief :- A wireless information was received

regarding two ladies having been stabbed by knives near Village

(2 of 6) [SOSA-895/2021]

Nimbla one kilometer towards Aahor and that they were lying in a

Maruti Swift Dezire vehicle. On receiving this information, Mr.

Manohar Lal, the Officer-in-charge, Police Outpost Bhadra Joon

reached the spot at 05.15 p.m. on 02.05.2011 and saw a white

Maruti Swift Dezire Car Registration No.RJ-19-CB-4257 lying

besides the road. Dead body an old lady aged about 60-65 years

was lying inside the car, whereas dead body of a lady aged about

30-32 years was lying on the road. Both had been stabbed and

killed. Mr. Manohar Lal submitted a report at the Police Station

Nosara, on which the FIR No.38/2011 came to be registered for

the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. During

investigation, it came to light that the victims were Smt.

Satyendra Kuar, wife of accused Mehar Singh, and Smt. Jagjeet

Kaur, mother of Smt. Satyendra Kaur. The relations between

Mehar Singh and Smt. Satyendra Kaur were strained. The lady

had drawn numerous insurance policies etc. and owned properties.

Mehar Singh was the nominee in the insurance policies. He used

to quarrel with Satyendra Kaur and had an evil eye on her

properties. He was also involved in extramarital affairs with other

women. He used to pressurize Smt. Satyendra Kaur to transfer

her properties and business to his name. With this objective,

Mehar Singh conspired with his brother Lakhjindra Singh and the

appellant herein his alleged lover and killed the two ladies while

they were proceeding in the Maruti Swift Dezire Car.

The prosecution case as against the appellant was

primarily based on four circumstances, viz. (1) Extramarital affair

between the appellant and Lakhjindra Singh; (2) the appellant

was lastly seen in the company of the accused Lakhjindra Singh

and the two ladies in the Maruti Swift Dezire car by witness

(3 of 6) [SOSA-895/2021]

Poorandas (P.W.16); (3) recovery of a bag at a distance of one

km. from the place of incident, wherein identity documents of the

appellant were lying; (4) that a mobile phone with sim

No.9530184690 was recovered from the possession of the

appellant herein and that regular frequent calls and chats were

made from this mobile number to the mobile number of the co-

accused Mehar Singh and Lakhjindra Singh. As per the call detail

record, location of the above mobile phone was around Mogda,

Kankani and Bhadra Joon, which is just nearby the place of

incident. The frequent calls and chats established that the

appellant was deeply involved in an affair with Lakhjindra Singh.

Based on these circumstantial evidence, the learned

trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as

above.

Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire

prosecution case is false and fabricated. There is no evidence

whatsoever to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The

witness of last seen Poorandas (P.W.16) was present when the

dead bodies were recovered and the documents were prepared by

the Investigating Officer on 03.05.2011, yet he did not disclose

the fact regarding having seen the accused appellant with

Lakhjindra Singh on the day of the incident or that she followed

the car of the victims on a motorcycle. Mr. Khatri further pointed

out that the witness admitted that he did not know the appellant

from before. In such circumstances, non-holding of a test

identification parade mitigates the circumstance of last seen as

against the appellant. Mr. Khatri further submitted that the mobile

phone in question was as a matter of fact, was not recovered from

(4 of 6) [SOSA-895/2021]

the appellant. The Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (P.W.19)

did not state in his testimony that the said mobile phone was

recovered from the appellant. The mobile number was issued to

Iqbal Singh, father of the deceased Satyendra Kaur, and as such

the prosecution was under an obligation to explain as to how the

said mobile came into possession of the accused. The call details

on which the trial court placed reliance were not proved by the

prosecution and were exhibited by the defence. He urged that the

appellant is a young woman, aged 35 years. She was on bail

during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to

her. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant

implored the court to accept the application for suspension of

sentence.

Learned Public Prosecution has opposed the application

for suspension of sentence. However, he too does not dispute the

fact that four circumstances on the strength whereof the appellant

has been convicted by the trial court, which are in the form of (1)

so-called extramarital affair of the appellant with the co-accused

Lakhjindra Singh; (2) the recovery of the bag of the appellant

from a distance of one km. from the place of incident and (3)

mobile call details record referred to supra; (4) last seen.

Suffice it to say that there is hardly any convincing

evidence on the record to satisfy the court regarding the

allegation of extramarital affair between the appellant and the co-

accused Lakhjindra Singh as no witness examined during trial

gave convincing evidence on this aspect. The mobile number

which has been attributed to the appellant and which has been

treated to be incriminating circumstance against the appellant was

issued in the name of Iqbal Singh, father of the deceased

(5 of 6) [SOSA-895/2021]

Satyendra Kaur. The prosecution did not prove the call details and

the defence relied upon the same. The Investigating Officer

Rajendra Singh (P.W.19), while deposing on oath did not state that

the mobile phone was recovered from the person of the accused

appellant when she was arrested. The prosecution gave no

explanation as to how the mobile phone issued in the name of

Iqbal Singh came into possession of the appellant. The witness

Poorndas (P.W.16), who claimed to have lastly seen the victims,

the appellant and the accused Lakhjindra Singh together before

the incident, admitted that he did not know the accused Garima

from before and that no test identification proceedings were held

by the Investigating Officer to confirm her identity. The

investigation statement of Poorndas was recorded after nearly a

month of the incident. The appellant being a woman was on bail

during the course of the trial. She did not misuse the liberty so

granted to her. She has strong and plausible grounds to assail the

impugned judgment. 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-

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 Sessions Judge, Jalore vide

judgment dated 18.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.64/2011 (CIS

46/2014) against the appellant-applicant Garima Vyas D/o

Avinash Vyas shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

(6 of 6) [SOSA-895/2021]

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 18.02.2022 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 her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.