Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLAS-780/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 780/2022
Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Kanni Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village
Bhadsoda, Distt. Chittorgarh. Presently Residing At Rented
House No. 703 Of Banshi Lal, P.s. Pratapnagar, Udaipur.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
19/07/2022
Admit.
Issue notice.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence, notices need not be issued.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Suspension
of Sentence (Appeal) No.485/2022.
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to
page-23 of the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, relevant
portion of which reads as follows:-
"bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; dk foospu ,oa
fo'ys'k.k fd;k tk;s rks tkfgj vkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr izHkwyky
oDr ?kVuk flD;wfjVh xkMZ ds in ij rSukr gksdj vius drZO; dk
fu"iknu dj jgk FkkA xYlZ gkWLVy dh Nk=k Hkwfedk ikVhy ds
lkFk e`rd }kjk NsM+NkM dh xbZ] eqag o xyk nckdj Nk=k Hkwfedk
ikVhy dks idM fy;k ,oa mldk eksckbZy Nhuk x;kA ,slh fLFkfr
esa vfHk;qDr izHkwyky tks fd flD;wfjVh xkMZ dh gSfl;r ls rSukr Fkk
og rFkk ,d vU; xkMZ ftudk nkf;Ro gh bl izdkj dh ?kVuk
?kfVr gksrs le; lacaf/kr O;fDr dk cpko djus dk Fkk ftls
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:50:12 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLAS-780/2022]
vfHk;qDr izHkwyky dqyeh }kjk fuHkkrs gq, mDr yM+ds dks idM+k
x;k] ysfdu tc e`rd dey iwfcZ;k yM+dh o eksckbZy dks NksM+dj
Hkkx x;k rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr xkMZ izHkwyky dqyeh ml yM+ds ds
ihNs iqu% Hkkxk vkSj mls idM+k ftl ij nksuksa ds chp gkFkkikbZ gqbZ
vkSj nksuksa xqRFkexqFkk gq, vkSj nksuksa us ,d nwljs ds lkFk ekjihV dh
vkSj bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izHkwyky dqyeh }kjk iRFkj ls e`rd dey
iwfcZ;k ds flj ij ekjk ftlls vkbZ pksV ds ifj.kkeLo:i e`rd
dey iwfcZ;k dh ?kVuk ds 7 fnu i'pkr e`R;q dkfjr gks xbZA
bl izdkj vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls tks xokgku ijhf{kr
djok;s x;s gS muds c;kuksa ls fu"d"kZ :i esa fuEufyf[kr rF;
U;k;ky; ds le{k tkfgj vkrs gS&
1& fd ?kVuk iwoZ fu/kkZfjr ;k iwoZ fu;ksftr ugha FkhA
2& ?kVuk vpkud mRiUu gqbZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k >xM+s ds
nkSjku ?kfVr gqbZA
3& vfHk;qDr izHkwyky dh e`rd dey ls iwoZ dh dksbZ tku
igpku ugha Fkh vFkkZr vfHk;qDr izHkwyky ds fy, e`rd dey
vtuch FkkA
4& vfHk;qDr rFkk e`rd esa igys ls dksbZ nq'euh ugha FkhA
5& vfHk;qDr ,oa e`rd nksuksa us ,d&nwljs ds lkFk ekjihV
dh FkhA
6& Lo;a vfHk;qDr ds Hkh ?kVuk esa pksVsa vkbZ FkhA
7& ?kVuk esa iz;qDr iRFkj dks vfHk;qDr vius lkFk ysdj ugha
vk;k ,oa ekSds ls iRFkj dks mBk;k x;kA"
Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was a
security guard on duty in a girls hostel and the deceased not only
teased the girl student but also tried to harm her and snatched
away her mobile, upon which the incident of sudden altercation
happened between the security guard and the deceased resulting
into the death of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant also
submits that the appellant was on bail during trial.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no
doubt that the appellant exceeded the required force for
discharging his duties as a security guard but there was no
intention to cause death.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the suspension of
sentence application.
This Court, on conjointly considering that incident was not
premeditated; it was a sudden incident; the accused and the
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:50:12 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLAS-780/2022]
deceased were not known to each other prior to the incident;
there was no animosity between the parties; the appellant was a
security guard in law college of university and was responsible for
security of the girl students as well as the appellant was on bail
during trial, is inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the
appellant.
Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused applicant-appellant.
Accordingly, S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.
485/2022 filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court
vide judgment dated 20.05.2022 in Sessions Case No.07/2017
against appellant - Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Kanni Ram shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he
executes a personal bond in a 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 Court on 22.08.2022 and
whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the appellant changes the place of
residence, they 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,
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-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 08:50:12 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLAS-780/2022]
appellant 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 appellant do not appear before the trial court, the learned
trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
10-/Jitender/Nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
