Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni 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. 82/2022

1.Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni S/o Pratap Singh, aged about 30 years, Resident of Dayav, P.S. Siddhmukh, District Churu (Raj.).

2.Mukesh Kumar @ Preetam S/o Mewa Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o Dhani Mohabbatpur, P.S. Aadampur, District Hisar (Haryana).

3.Ravindra Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, aged about 26 years, R/o Ninan, Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4.Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjay S/o Pratap Singh, aged about 31 years, R/o Ludeshar, P.S. Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa (Haryana).

5.Mukesh Kumar S/o Kuldeep, aged about 30 years, R/o Jataan, P.S. Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

6.Vinod Kumar S/o Bharat Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o Dhani Mohabbatpur (Dhani Jhajhariya), P.S. Siddhmukh, District Churu (Raj.).

7.Jaiprakash @ J.P. @ Saimand S/o Poonamchand, aged about 26 years, R/o Chhanibari, P.S. Bhirani, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

(Presently lodged in District Jail, Hanumangarh)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi & Mr. Manjeet Godara.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.

Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Mr. D.S. Gharsana.

(2 of 6) [SOSA-82/2022]

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

Order

15/03/2022

The appellants applicants herein have been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District

Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.27/2015 (C.I.S. No.27/2015):

Offences              Sentences                 Fine             Fine Default
                                                                 sentences
Section 147 IPC       2 Years R.I.              Rs.500/-         1 Month's S.I.
Section 148 IPC       3 Years R.I.              Rs.1,000/-       2 Month's S.I.
Section     341/149 1 Month's S.I.              Rs.500/-         5 Days S.I.
IPC
Section     302/149 Life                        Rs.5,000/-       2 Years' S.I.
IPC                 Imprisonment
Section 120B IPC      Life                      Rs.5,000/-       2 Years' S.I.
                      Imprisonment

The applicants-appellants have preferred this application

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

during pendency of the appeal.

Shri Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri

Rajeev Bishnoi and Shri Manjeet Godara, counsel representing the

appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire

prosecution case is false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, the

deceased Shri Ajeet Kumar met with an accidental death while he

was proceeding alone on his motorcycle. As per the written report

(Ex.P/12), the incident took place on 28.04.2015 at 10.30 am.

The first informant Shri Jile Singh, father of the deceased and the

alleged eye-witnesses Surendra @ Sunny, Sumer Singh and

Shankar Lal all reached the hospital where Shri Ajeet Singh had

(3 of 6) [SOSA-82/2022]

been taken and the police also arrived there. However, the matter

was not reported to the police at that point of time and the FIR

(Ex.P/13) came to be submitted as late as at 11.15 pm. on

28.04.2015. The prosecution portrayed a theory in the statement

of first informant Shri Jile Singh (PW-5) that the deceased Ajeet

Singh made an oral dying declaration in his presence taking the

name of the appellants herein and one Mahipal as his assailants.

However, the factum of the oral dying declaration was not

mentioned in the FIR and this omission goes to the root of the

matter. Shri Jain further submitted that Mahipal Jakhar against

whom, the eye-witnesses Surendra @ Sunny (PW-11) and Sumer

Singh (PW-13) made a specific allegation that he inflicted the blow

of an iron rod on the neck of the deceased, was not charge-

sheeted by the police and the application filed by the prosecution

to summon him as an additional accused has been rejected. Shri

Jain further submitted that the appellant Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni

has suffered incarceration of more than 6 years whereas the

remaining appellants were on bail during the course of trial and

they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. He thus urges

that the appellants deserve indulgence of bail in this case during

pendency of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri B.S. Sandhu

and Shri D.S. Gharsana, Advocates representing the complainant,

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

Shri Jain. They contended that the eye-witnesses Surendra @

Sunny (PW-11) and Sumer Singh (PW-13) have levelled categoric

allegations against the appellants regarding the assault made on

the victim Ajeet Singh. This attack was fueled by long standing

animosity between the parties and thus, the case is of preplanned

(4 of 6) [SOSA-82/2022]

murder. They thus urged that the appellants do not deserve

indulgence of bail in this case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the record.

The incident in question allegedly took place on 28.04.2015

in the morning at about 10.30 am. Admittedly, the injured Shri

Ajeet Singh had been taken to the hospital soon after the incident

and the police also reached there. This fact is duly fortified from

the Rojnamcha entries (Ex.P/115 and Ex.P/117). However, despite

the presence of police in the Government Hospital Bhadra, neither

the family members of Ajeet Singh nor the so-called eye-

witnesses, who were also present there, made any attempt to

lodged the first information report. Shri Jile Singh, the first

informant, upon being examined on oath as PW-5, portrayed a

theory that his son Shri Ajeet Singh (the deceased) made an oral

dying declaration before him in which, he named the appellants

and one Mahipal Singh as the assailants. However, the factum of

the alleged oral dying declaration is missing from the written

report (Ex.P/12). The eye-witnesses Surendra @ Sunny (PW-11)

and Sumer Singh (PW-13) made a pertinent allegation that the

accused Mahipal Singh and the accused Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni

gave blows of iron rod on the neck of the deceased. However, this

theory was put-forth well after the dead body of Ajeet had been

subjected to postmortem and the issuance of the postmortem

report (Ex.P/5) wherein, for the first time, the Medical Jurist noted

the presence of spinal cord injury. It seems that till that time, the

prosecution witnesses did not have any idea whatsoever that an

injury had been inflicted on the neck of the deceased. The

investigating officer concluded that Mahipal, who was named in

(5 of 6) [SOSA-82/2022]

the FIR, was as a matter of fact not involved in the offence and a

negative report was given qua him. This Court is informed that the

application filed by the prosecution for summoning Shri Mahipal

Singh as an additional accused was rejected by the concerned

court. The accused Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni was arrested on

18.04.2015 and since then, he is in custody and thus, he has

suffered incarceration of nearly 7 years. The other appellants were

on bail during trial and there is no allegation that they misused

the liberty of bail so granted to them.

In this background, we are of the view that the appellants-

applicants have available to them valid and substantial grounds for

assailing the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is

unlikely in the near future.

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-

appellants, during pendency of the appeal.

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, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated

30.11.2021 in Sessions Case No.27/2015 (C.I.S. No.27/2015)

against the appellants-applicants (1) Ramesh Kumar @ Dhoni,

(2) Mukesh Kumar @ Preetam, (3) Ravindra Kumar, (4)

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjay, (5) Mukesh Kumar, (6) Vinod

Kumar and (7) Jaiprakash @ J.P. @ Saimand, 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/-

(6 of 6) [SOSA-82/2022]

each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their

appearance in this 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.