Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 283/2022
Prakash Singh S/o Shri Manna Singh, Aged About 24 Years, By
Caste Rawat, R/o Mahghato Ka Guar Chattarpur Deogarh Ps
Distt. Rajsamand (Lodged In Dist. Jail Rajsamand)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bhagirath R. Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.R.Chhaparwal, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
ORDER
13/05/2022
This is a second application for suspension of sentences filed
on behalf of the appellant Prakash Singh S/o Manna Singh, who
was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.54/2015 vide judgment
dated 19.11.2019 whereby, the appellant was convicted and
sentenced as below:
Conviction for the Sentences
offences under
Sections
Section 341 I.P.C. 1 month's S.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to pay the fine, to further
undergo 5 days' additional S.I.
Section 323/34 I.P.C. 1 year's S.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- and
in default to pay the fine, to further
undergo 7 days' additional S.I.
Section 324/34 I.P.C. 3 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs.2000/- and
in default to pay the fine, to further
(2 of 3) [SOSA-283/2022]
undergo 15 days' additional S.I.
Section 307/34 I.P.C. 10 years' S.I. with a fine of Rs.8000/-
and in default to pay the fine, to further
undergo 2 months' additional S.I.
Section 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.10,000/-
The first application for suspension of sentences which was
filed on behalf of all the three convicted accused, was not pressed
qua the appellant herein by the counsel representing the appellant
at that point of time. Now with change of counsel, the instant
second application for suspension of sentences has been moved.
Shri Bhagirath R. Bishnoi counsel representing the appellant
vehemently and fervently urges that the conviction of the
appellant as recorded by the learned trial court is illegal and
unjustified as the prosecution has claimed that the appellant wa
armed with an axe, whereas no such sharp weapon injury was
noticed on the body of the deceased when postmortem was
carried out. Thus, Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi urges that the appellant
deserves indulgence of bail in this case.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand vehemently
and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel
for the appellant and urged that the eye-witnesses have clearly
alleged that the appellant herein gave blow of an axe on the head
of the deceased Ratan Sigh. He submitted that it is an incident
wherein multiple assailants had launched the assault and thus, it
would not have been possible for the eye-witnesses to distinctly
notice as to the side of the axe from which the injury was caused.
He urged that the injury from the reverse side of the axe would
(3 of 3) [SOSA-283/2022]
unquestionably look like a blunt weapon injury and hence, the
appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court and he does
not deserve indulgence of bail.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned
judgment and the record, we find that there is a distinct allegation
of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant herein inflicted an
axe blow on the head of Ratan Singh, which resulted into his
death. An axe, if landed from the reverse side would result into a
lacerated injury which was precisely noticed by the doctor when
post mortem was conducted. The head injury inflicted to Shri
Ratan Singh proved fatal. In this background, we are not inclined
to enlarge the appellant on bail.
Hence, the instant second application for suspension of
sentences is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/ 3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
