Tara Chand vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12323 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 757/2022

1. Tara Chand S/o Shri Roop Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/ o Village Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar, District Hanumangarh)

2. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar, District Hanumangarh)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. joshi Ms. Kirti Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

14/10/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for

suspension of sentence.

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

preferred by the appellants-applicants, who have been convicted

and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.24/2021 (CIS

No.24/2011) vide judgment dated 08.08.2022. The appellants-

applicants have been sentenced as under:-

                                           (2 of 4)                      [SOSA-757/2022]




Offence U/s.        Sentence               Fine                     Fine default in
                                                                    sentence
302/34 IPC          R.L.I.                 10,000/-                 1 month's SI

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the police

has failed to collect credible evidence to prove that the appellants

have committed the murder of the deceased. It has been

submitted that admittedly there is no eye-witness in the case and

the prosecution was solely based upon the circumstantial

evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence produced by the

prosecution is not sufficient to connect the appellants with the

commission of crime.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the dead

body of the deceased was recovered on 15.01.2021, however, the

FIR was lodged on 16.01.2021 by one Rakesh PW-9. Learned

counsel invited our attention towards the statement of PW-9 and

has asserted that the said witness in evidence, has specifically

stated that he has simply put his thumb impression on the report

prepared by the police and not by himself.

Learned counsel also submitted that the recovery of the

lathies at the instance of the appellatns was made after about 20

days of the incident and the same has also been recovered from

an open ground.

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any

motive for which the appellants might have committed the crime.

Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it is a case of no

evidence, however, the trial Court has grossly erred in convicting

and sentencing the appellants. It is also submitted that hearing of

the appeal filed by the appellants will take time, hence, sentence

(3 of 4) [SOSA-757/2022]

awarded by the trial Court against the appellants may kindly be

suspended.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is inclined

to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants-applicants by

the trial Court vide judgment impugned.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed

and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nohar, District

Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.24/2021 (CIS No.24/2021)

against appellants-applicants (1) Tara Chand S/o Shri Roop

Ram and (2) Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Ram shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal provided each

of them 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 their appearance in this court on 16.11.2022 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 change 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.

(4 of 4) [SOSA-757/2022]

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the apellants

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 appellants do

not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall

report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

53-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)