Hanuman Ram vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 7166 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 218/2022

Hanuman Ram S/o Dala Ram, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Jat (Rao), R/o Rawatsar, Police Station Degana, Distt. Nagour (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Jaitaran)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

13/05/2022

Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant

and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned

Judgment and the material available on record.

The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in

Sessions Case No.39/2018 (CIS No.39/2018):

Offences            Sentences                   Fine              Fine    Default
                                                                  Sentences
Section 148 IPC 3 Years' R.I.                   Rs.2,000/-        2 Months' S.I.
Section 302 IPC Life                            Rs.5,000/-        6 Months' S.I.
                Imprisonment.
Section 460 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/-                      6 Months' S.I.
Section      120B Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/-                    6 Months' S.I.
IPC



                                         (2 of 5)                 [SOSA-218/2022]

The incident relates to the alleged murder of Babulal by

unknown assailants on the night intervening 17/18th June, 2018.

The written report (Ex.P/1) came to be submitted by Ramlal at the

Police Station Aanandpur Kalu, District Pali alleging inter alia that

his father Shri Babulal had been murdered by unknown assailants

by inflicting blows of sharp weapons while the deceased was

sleeping inside his house. After investigation, initially, a charge-

sheet came to be submitted against Mahipal, the appellant herein

and Ramnarayan son of Babulal. Later on, a supplementary

charge-sheet was filed against Sundri wife of the deceased

Babulal, Mamta daughter of Babulal and Sushila daughter of

Babulal.

Shri Shekhawat, counsel representing the applicant

appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that there is

hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case to

connect the appellant with the crime. The only links in the chain of

circumstances, which have been relied upon by the prosecution so

as to prove the guilt of the appellant, are in form of the

confessional statement of the accused Mahipal and the recovery of

a knife made at the instance of the accused appellant. He urged

that the confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be read

against the accused appellant as the same is hit by Sections 25/

26 of the Indian Evidence act. Regarding the recovery of knife,

Shri Shekhawat urged that no blood group was found on the knife

when it was subjected to serological examination at the FSL. In

this regard, he referred to the FSL report (Ex.P/70) which reflects

that the Chaku (Article 'K') recovered at the instance of the

accused Hanuman Ram did not give any conclusive test regarding

(3 of 5) [SOSA-218/2022]

blood grouping. On these grounds, Shri Shekhawat implored the

Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and

direct enlargement of the appellant on bail during pendency of the

appeal.

Per contra, Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned GA-cum-AAG

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

Shri Shekhawat and urged that the prosecution has led convincing

circumstantial evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused and

thus, he does not deserve indulgence of bail in this application for

suspension of sentences.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

A thorough perusal of the record indicates that only two links

of circumstantial evidence were presented by the prosecution in

an attempt to bring home the charges against the appellant;

(i) the interrogation note of the co-accused Mahipal and

(ii) recovery of knife.

Suffice it to say that interrogation note of an accused

recorded by the police officer would be hit by Sections 25 and 26

of the Indian Evidence Act. The knife recovered at the instance of

the appellant did not give any conclusive result regarding blood

grouping when the same was tested at the FSL which fact is

affirmed from the FSL Report (Ex.P/70).

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

applicant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as

to assail the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely

in near future.

(4 of 5) [SOSA-218/2022]

In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts

and circumstance as available on record, we deem it just and

proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant

applicant, 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, Jaitaran, District Pali, vide judgment dated 28.02.2022 in

Sessions Case No.39/2018 (CIS No.39/2018) against the

appellant-applicant Hanuman Ram, 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

court on 21.06.2022 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

(5 of 5) [SOSA-218/2022]

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.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                        (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    23-Tikam/Devesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)