Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 535/2021
1. Sohan Singh @ Sonu S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About
34 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village - Kalu, Tehsil - Lunkaransar,
District Bikaner. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail,
Bikaner)
2. Vikas Puri S/o Shri Raju Puri, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Goswami, R/o Village - Kalu, Tehsil - Lunkaransar, District
Bikaner. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepesh Beniwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
03/03/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal misc. application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the
application for suspension of sentence may kindly be
allowed and the sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in Sessions
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:23:15 PM)
(2 of 4) [SOSA-535/2021]
Case No.40/2012 (CIS no.510/2014) against the
appellants may kindly be suspended till the final
disposal of annexed appeal and appellants may kindly
be ordered to be released on bail."
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the ratio decidendi laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hallu & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 300, as cited by learned counsel for the
applicants/appellants.
4. This Court observes that in the impugned judgment dated
20.02.2021, the learned court below, on the basis of the
testimony of the P.W. 17 Mr. Rajesh Beniwal, observed as follows:
"bl izdkj bl xokg us eq[; :i ls ifjoknh i{k dks vkdzked ikVhZ
crk;k gS rFkk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd nksuksa i{kksa esa >xM+k gqvk Fkk ftlesa
nksuksa ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ FkhA blh >xM+s esa iw.kkZjke dh e`R;q dkfjr gksus
dk dFku blus fd;k gSA bl xokg us eq[; :i ls cpko i{k }kjk mBk;s
x;s rdksZ dk leFkZu fd;k gSA"
4.1. The learned Court below further observed that cross cases
have been filed by the parties, against each another, and the
records of the said cases before the learned Trial Court below does
not reveal that the alleged incident led to the tussle and fighting
between the parties, which resulted into the death of the victim.
And that, the witnesses presented before the learned Court below
in both cases reveal the true facts of the case upon which the
learned Court below has adjudicated the matter and passed the
impugned judgment.
The same was observed in the impugned judgment in the
following terms:
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:23:15 PM)
(3 of 4) [SOSA-535/2021]
"U;k;ky; ds fouez er ;g gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjksa us ,d nwljs ds
fo:} dzksl izdj.k ntZ djok;k gSA nksuksa i=kofy;ksa esa ys[kc)
djok;s x;s c;ku ,oa nLrkost bl U;k;ky; ds le{k gSA ifjoknh
i{k }kjk ?kVuk dh ewy mRifr (genesis of incident) dks
fNik;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gS ijUrq nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{;] tks
muds }kjk vyx vyx izdj.kksa esa izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlls lkjh
fLFkfr U;k;ky; ds le{k izdV gks tkrh gS] blds lUnHkZ esa
U;k;ky; }kjk viuk er mijksDr fcUnqvksa esa O;Dr fd;k tk pqdk
gSA"
4.2 As is reflected from the record, the relevant portions of the
testimonies of the PW-1 Mani Ram Godara (s/o deceased Poorna
Ram) and PW 3 Dilip s/o Girdhari Ram, as given under oath on
30.07.2011 and 10.02.2012 respectively, read as follows:
PW-1 Maniram Godara :
"rHkh nfyi esjs firk iw.kkZjke le>kus ds fy, larnkl dh gksVy
dh rjQ jokuk gq, A . . . . fodkl ds gkFk esa cNhZ Fkh] lksuw] e?knkl
ds gkFk esa dqYgkM+h Fkh . . . . !"
PW-3 Dilip :
". . . . fodkl ds gkFk esa cNhZ] lksus ds gkFk esa dqqYgkM+h o e?knkl ds
gkFk esa dqwYgkM+h FkhA chjcynkl ds gkFk esas ykBh] nqxkZnkl ds gkFk esa
ykBh ca"khjke iqjksfgr ds gkFk esa lfj;k Fkkk A fodkl] lkskuw o e?knkl
us iw.kZjke ds lkFk ekjihV "kq: dj nhA ;s iw.kZjke dks /kMk /kM+ ekjihV
djus yx x;sA ekSds ij euhjke] lR;ukjk;.k igqap x;s FksA eSa chp
cpko djus yxk rks chjcy nkl us esjs gkFk ij ykBh ekjh] ftlls gkFk
VwV x;kA"
4.3 Both the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses reveal
that both the accused/applicants-appellants were seen to be in
possession of the weapons mentioned therein, and it is evident
that there is no inconsistency in the testimonies either.
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:23:15 PM)
(4 of 4) [SOSA-535/2021]
4.4 This Court further observes that the applicants/appellants
have only served only two years of the sentence, till date.
4.5 In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that
the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2021 is a speaking and
reasoned judgment, passed on the basis of the testimonies and
after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case,
and after an analysis of relevant judicial precedents.
4.6 Thus, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence
awarded to the applicants/appellants by the learned trial court.
4.7 Consequently, the present criminal misc. application for
suspension of sentence is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
148-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
