Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8900 Raj

(1 of 4) [SOSA-224/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc III Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 224/2022

Ramesh S/o Laxmanram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Atbada, Police Station, Sojat City, District Pali. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/07/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

on record.

The appellant applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 03.12.2016 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in

Sessions Case No.12/2014:

Offences               Sentences                   Fine          Fine Default
                                                                 sentences
Section      302/149 Life                          Rs.10,000/- 1 Year's R.I.
IPC                  Imprisonment
Section 148 IPC        2 Years' R.I.               Rs.500/-      1 Month's R.I.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2 of 4) [SOSA-224/2022]

The applicant-appellant has preferred this third application

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for being released on bail

during pendency of the appeal.

After rejection of the earlier applications for suspension of

sentences preferred on behalf of the appellant, he preferred

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8904/2019 before Hon'ble the

Supreme Court, which was decided vide order dated 10.12.2021,

giving liberty to the appellant to renew the application for bail

before the High Court after three months. In pursuance to the said

direction, the instant application for suspension of sentences has

been moved.

Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel representing the

appellant, urged that the appellant has been convicted on the

basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence in the form of oral dying

declaration as deposed by the witnesses Bhera Ram (P.W.6) and

Bharat Kumar (P.W.16). Drawing the attention of this Court to the

statements of these two witnesses, Shri Bora pointed out that

neither of them pertinently stated that the deceased told them

that the appellant herein was one of the assailants. He urged that

as per the witnesses, the deceased only stated that Laxmanram

and his sons were the assailants.

Laxmanram himself was not arraigned as an accused in this

case. The appellant is one from the four sons of Laxmanram and

thus, he cannot be singled out on the basis of such vague

evidence of oral dying declaration. He thus urges that the

appellant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the

impugned judgment. He is in custody for the last nearly 8 years.

Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds,

Shri Bora implored the Court to accept the application for

(3 of 4) [SOSA-224/2022]

suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant

on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the

appellant's counsel. However, he too was not in a position to

dispute the fact that the most material evidence relied upon by

the prosecution as against the appellant is in form of the oral

dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased Hanumanram

before the witnesses (P.W.6) Bhera Ram and (P.W.16) Bharat

Kumar. Neither of these two witnesses pertinently stated that

Hanumanram named the appellant herein as being the assailant. A

general allegation was made that Hanuman Ram told that

Laxmanram and his sons were the assailants. Only two of the four

sons of Laxmanram were arraigned as accused in the case and

Laxmanram himself was also not chargesheeted.

In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant

Ramesh has available to him strong and plausible grounds for

assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely

to consume time.

Accordingly, the third 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, Sojat,

District Pali vide judgment dated 03.12.2016 in Sessions Case No.

12/2014 against the appellant-applicant Ramesh, shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be

released on bail, provided he 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 his appearance in this

(4 of 4) [SOSA-224/2022]

court on 08.08.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their 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(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the

accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial

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

Court for cancellation of bail.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

4-/Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)