Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramandeep Kaur @ Roma vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 March, 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. 139/2022
Ramandeep Kaur @ Roma W/o Jasvinder Singh, Aged About 30
Years, D/o Sukha Singh, R/o Daulatpura, Police Station Matili
Rathan, At Present Resident 13 Bb, Police Station Padampur,
District Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged At Mahila Bandi
Sudhar Grah, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 112/2022
Rajendrapal @ Raju S/o Harphool Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o 01 C.c. Police Station Padampur District Sri Ganganagar. (At
Present Lodged In Sriganganagar Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Sahran}
Mr. S.K. Verma}
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
15/03/2022
Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the
impugned Judgment and the material available on record.
(2 of 4) [SOSA-139/2022]
The appellants applicants herein stand convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.07/2017:
Offences u/s Sentences Fine Amount In default
302 IPC L.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month R.I.
201 IPC 7 Years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month R.I.
120-B IPC L.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month R.I.
The applicants-appellants have preferred these applications
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for being released on bail
during pendency of the appeal.
Learned counsel Shri Rajesh Saharan and Shri S.K. Verma
representing the appellants applicants, vehemently and fervently
contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated.
They submit that the case against the present applicants is purely
based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness of the
incident. They further submit that there is no direct substantive
evidence on record which can connect the accused with the
murder of Jasvinder Singh. They further submit that evidence of
the prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Iqbal Singh, P.W.2
Malkeet Singh, P.W. 3 Baldev Singh and P.W. 4 Rajendra Singh @
Bholu, who gave evidence of extra judicial confession by the
accused Ramandeep Kaur @ Roma is totally unbelievable, as it
was extracted under police threat. Lastly, they submit that hearing
of appeal will consume time, therefore, the sentence awarded to
the appellants may be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application
for suspension of sentences and opposed the application for
(3 of 4) [SOSA-139/2022]
suspension of sentence but he too, is not in a position to dispute
the above facts.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the appellants' counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and have
gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record.
There are significant contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the theory of extra judicial
confession.
In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the
opinion that the appellants have available to them strong and
plausible grounds for assailing the impugned Judgment. Hearing of
the appeal is likely to consume time. The appellants have
remained in custody for the last nearly 05 years 3 months and 13
days till 04.03.2022.
In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts
and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just and
proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellants,
during pendency of the appeals.
Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar, vide judgment dated
28.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.07/2017 against the appellants-
applicants (i)Ramandeep Kaur @ Roma W/o Jasvinder Singh and
(ii) Rajendrapal @ Raju S/o Harphool Ram shall remain suspended
till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released
on bail, provided each of them 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 their appearance in this
(4 of 4) [SOSA-139/2022]
court on 18.04.2022 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.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
45-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
