Ganesh Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13238 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 748/2022

Ganesh Lal S/o Roda, Aged About 33 Years, R/o In Front Of Om Bhana Ashram, Balicha, South Extension Scheme, Goverdhan Vihar, Udaipur, District Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chaparwal, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/11/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for

suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted

that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing

the accused appellant-applicant vide impugned order. It is also

submitted that as a matter of fact, complainant PW-2 in her

complaint, police statements and court statements, has

specifically stated that four persons were involved in commission

of crime. It is also argued that out of those four persons, three

persons namely Jagdish, Ramesh and Deepak were identified in

the test identification parade, however, the appellant-applicant

was not put to test identification parade along with those accused

persons, though he was arrested along with those co-accused

(2 of 4) [SOSA-748/2022]

persons. It is also argued that in the absence of any test

identification by the complainant, the trial court has grossly erred

in committing and sentencing the accused appellant-applicant. It

is also argued that the prosecution has implicated the appellant-

applicant solely on the basis of information supplied by him

regarding the place where some looted articles got burned by the

accused persons. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, simply

on the basis of said piece of evidence, it cannot be said that the

appellant-applicant was involved in commission of crime in any

manner. It is also submitted that case of the appellant is different

from other co-accused persons, who have been convicted and

sentenced by the trial court. It is further submitted that hearing of

the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment

will take time, hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant-

applicant may be suspended.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

application for suspension of sentence and argued that the trial

court has not committed any illegality in committing and

sentencing the appellant-applicant. It is also submitted that the

appellant-applicant was involved in commission of heinous crime,

therefore, his sentence is not liable to be suspended.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the

record.

It is not in dispute that the appellant-applicant was arrested

along with other co-accused persons, however, he has not been

put to test identification though other co-accused persons were

subjected to test identification and identified by the complainant.

The prosecution has failed to supply any reason for not putting the

appellant-applicant for test identification parade. It is also to be

(3 of 4) [SOSA-748/2022]

noticed that the trial court has placed reliance on the fact that the

place from where the looted articles burnt by the accused persons

was identified by the appellant-applicant but the same cannot be

said to be sufficient proof that the appellant-applicant was

involved in commission of crime.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case, we deem just and proper to suspend the substantive

sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application filed

under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

substantive sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.4 Udaipur vide judgment dated 12.07.2022 in Sessions

Case No.57/2018 against appellant Ganesh Lal S/o Roda shall

remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal,

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 12.12.2022

and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on

the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the

month of January of every year till the appeal is

decided.

2. That if the appellant changes the place of

residence, he will give in writing his changed

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel

in the High Court.

(4 of 4) [SOSA-748/2022]

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address,

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-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

appellant was 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.

                                   (FARJAND ALI),J                                              (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
                                    37-Taruna/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)