Teeta vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 3092 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 40/2023 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.13/2021

Teeta S/o Shri Jokha, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Undvapati, P.s. Kushalgarh, District Banswara (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan - Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

17/04/2023

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.01.2021 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara Camp

Kushalgarh, in Sessions Case No.47/2016 :

Offence Sentence Fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six month's additional S.I.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for release on

bail during the pendency of the appeal.

(2 of 4) [SOSA-40/2023]

3. Leaned counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that

the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the

appellant-applicant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

4. Submissions have been made that the appellant-applicant

has undergone a total sentence of about 08 years after taking into

consideration the remission earned and granted. He drew the

attention of the Court to the statement of prosecution witness,

child Pappu (PW-2) and urged that as per the evidence of the said

witness, accused Dilip and Teeta both inflicted lathi blows to his

father, deceased Dala. However, the medical jurist Dr. Lalitpal

(PW-12), who conducted the postmortem on the body of the

deceased Dala indicated only one injury on the head of the

deceased, which resulted in fracture of the underlying bone,

causing death.

5. It was submitted that once the allegations are that two

accused inflicted the blow on the head of the deceased and only

one injury was found, the testimony is belied by the medical

evidence.

6. Further submissions have been made that though lathi has

been alleged to be recovered from the appellant-applicant, which

contained human blood, the blood grouping has been found to be

inconclusive in the FSL report.

7. It was further submitted that the sentence of co-accused

Dilip, against whom similar allegations were made, has been

suspended by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc.

2nd Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.395/2021 on

05.08.2021. Submissions have been made that as the hearing of

(3 of 4) [SOSA-40/2023]

the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and, therefore,

his sentence may be suspended.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence.

9. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case

including the statements of PW-2 Pappu and PW-12 Dr. Lalitpal

and fact that similarly placed co-accused Dilip has been granted

bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, without making any

observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the

substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant, namely, Teeta

Son of Jokha, during the pendency of the appeal.

10. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Banswara Camp Kushalgarh in Sessions Case

No.47/2016 against the appellant-applicant, namely, Teeta Son of

Jokha, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid

appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his

appearance in this court on 17.05.2023 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 applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to

(4 of 4) [SOSA-40/2023]

the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change his address(s) he will give in writing their changed address to the trial court.

11. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as

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

applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also

be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall

not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to

pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the

said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court,

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

cancellation of bail.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 25-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)