Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra @ Rajkumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence (Appeal) No.
472/2022
Hari Ram S/o Shri Dula Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat,
Resident Of Chailasi, P.s. Sadar, Sikar District Sikar. (Presently
Undergoing Sentence At Central Jail Bikaner)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence (Appeal) No.
473/2022
Rajendra @ Rajkumar S/o Shri Kana Ramji, Aged About 38 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Sutod P.s. Nechhwa, Tehsil Laxmangarh
District Sikar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampati Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chapparwal, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
21/11/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications for
suspension of sentence.
The instant applications for suspension of sentence have
been preferred by the appellant-applicants, who have been
convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.05/2010 vide
judgment dated 13.03.2020. The appellant-applicants have been
sentenced as under :-
(2 of 4) [SOSA-472/2022]
Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence (in default
of payment of fine)
302/149 IPC L.I. 10,000/- 6 months' S.I.
458 IPC 07 years' R.I. 5,000/- 6 months' S.I.
323/149 IPC 01 year's S.I. 1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after
rejection of the first application for suspension of sentence of the
applicants-appellants, this Court has suspended the sentence of
two co-accused persons namely Gordhan and Surendra Kumar.
Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the
appellant/applicant Hari Ram is concerned, his name is not figured
in the FIR, however, later on, the complainant and the other
prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated him. It is also
submitted that no specific role has been assigned to
appellant/applicant- Hari Ram and omnibus allegations have been
levelled against him. It is further submitted that
appellant/applicant- Hari Ram is in custody since last eight years
and the appeal filed on his behalf against the impugned judgment
may take long time for hearing.
In respect of appellant/applicant- Rajendra @ Rajkumar,
learned counsel has argued that though his name is figured in the
FIR complaint, however, the complainant (PW-1) Rajndra in his
court statement, particularly in cross-examination, has admitted
that police have informed that the said appellant/applicant was
not involved in commission of crime. Learned counsel has also
submitted that so far as the identification parade is concerned, on
which the learned trial court has placed reliance, the same was
conducted after a period of fifteen years and taking into
(3 of 4) [SOSA-472/2022]
consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, it
can be assumed that the, identification parade was not in
accordance with law. Learned counsel has further submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of
appellant/applicant- Rejendra @ Rajkumar to commit crime
because as per the complainant himself, he has enmity with
Vijaypal and Jaipal and not with the appellant. It is further
submitted that appellant- Rajendra is also in custody since last
eight years and the appeal filed by him is not likely to be heard in
near future, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court
may kindly be suspended.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for
suspension of sentences.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on suspension of
sentence applications.
Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of
these cases, I consider it just and proper to suspend the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellants.
Accordingly, these suspension of sentence applications filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the
substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment
dated 13.03.2020 in Sessions Case No.05/2010 against
appellants/applicants- Hari Ram and Rajendra @ Raj Kumar shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal,
provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
(4 of 4) [SOSA-472/2022]
court on 22.12.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the appellants changes the place of
residence, they will give in writing 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,
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-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-appellants 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 appellants do not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
27-28.Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
