Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Savitri vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 May, 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. 848/2021
Savitri W/o Budhram, Aged About 30 Years, Kalaniya, P.s. Pallu,
Teh. Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Appellant Is Lodged In The Sub Jail, Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
16/05/2022
The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.09.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Sessions Case CIS No.21/2017:
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
Sentences
Section 364 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.2,000/- 1 Month's
Additional
Imprisonment
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.2,000/- 1 Month's
Imprisonment. Additional
Imprisonment
Section 201 IPC 4 Years' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days
Additional
Imprisonment
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2 of 5) [SOSA-848/2021]
The instant application for suspension of sentences has been
filed on behalf of the applicant appellant seeking release on bail
during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application
for suspension of sentences.
We have heard learned counsel representing the applicant
appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the
impugned Judgment and the material available on record.
Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the applicant
appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire
prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant has been
convicted for the alleged murder of the child Master 'V' on
16.04.2017. The FIR came to be registered without casting
suspicion on any person regarding the disappearance of the child.
On 18.04.2017, dead body of the child was found buried under a
heap of cow-dung. The appellant has been implicated in this case
on the basis of direct testimony viz. statement of Reshma (PW-1)
who did not support the prosecution case and was declared
hostile. The trial court recorded a finding that presence of eye-
witnesses at the place of incident is otherwise also unbelievable.
The second circumstance on the basis whereof, the appellant was
convicted, was alleged theory of motive in relation whereto, Manju
(PW-25) mother of the deceased, alleged that she and Savitri
were on enmical terms because of an incident which took place
2½ years ago wherein, a locket worn by the appellant was broken
and the appellant was continuously threatening to take revenge.
Shri Moti Singh urged that the alleged theory of motive is totally
unbelievable because the incident from which this inference is
sought to be drawn, was a trivial one and took place about 2½
(3 of 5) [SOSA-848/2021]
years ago and thus, the same has no nexus with the alleged
murder. Criticizing the statements of the two witnesses who gave
evidence of extra-judicial confession namely Omprakash (PW-2)
and Kesharam (PW-3), learned counsel Shri Moti Singh urged that
the dead body of the child was recovered on 18.04.2017 whereas,
these two witnesses alleged that the extra-judicial confession was
made by the accused appellant before them as late as on
17.05.2017. The gross delay of more than one month in the
making of alleged extra-judicial confession, makes the entire
prosecution case doubtful. On these grounds, Shri Moti Singh
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
the appellant's counsel and urged that the appellant was bearing a
grudge against Smt. Manju, mother of the deceased child,
because she had broken a locket worn by the appellant who got a
chance to take revenge on 16.04.2017 because all family
members of the child had gone out. Accordingly, the appellant
sent away her own children and thereafter, she killed Master 'V'
and buried the dead body under the heap of cow-dung. The
evidence of motive is also supported by the circumstance of extra-
judicial confession. Hence, Shri Siddiqui implored the Court to
dismiss the 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.
(4 of 5) [SOSA-848/2021]
The appellant is a woman and is in custody in this case from
20.05.2017. The prosecution portrayed an eye-witness (PW-1)
Reshma to prove its case as against the appellant but she did not
support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The trial
court also held that there was no possibility that there was any
eye-witness to the incident. The theory of motive, which has been
portrayed by the prosecution, pertains to an incident which took
place about 2½ years ago before the incident wherein, the
appellant's locket was broken in a quarrel with Manju, mother of
the deceased child. However, this incident is too remote in point of
time so as to have nexus with the alleged murder. The two eye-
witnesses of the extra-judicial confession namely Omprakash (PW-
2) and Kesharam (PW-3) claimed that the appellant made the
extra-judicial confession before them on 17.05.2017 i.e. after
more than a month of the alleged incident. Whether or not,
evidence of the two eye-witnesses, referred to supra, would stand
to scrutiny would be for this Court to consider when the appeal is
being finally decided. However, for the present, we are of the
opinion that the appellant applicant has available to her strong
and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment.
Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future.
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 No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated
(5 of 5) [SOSA-848/2021]
18.09.2021 in Sessions Case CIS No.21/2017 against the
appellant-applicant Savitri W/o Budhram, shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall
be released on bail, provided she 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 her appearance in this
court on 20.06.2022 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
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
16-Tikam/divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
