Bala Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3098 Raj

[2023/RJJD/010621]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 126/2023

1. Bala Ram S/o Shri Gautam, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Rampuriya, P.s. Deogarh, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

2. Pushpendra @ Pushkar S/o Shri Bala Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Rampuriya, P.s. Deogarh, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioners 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 appellants-applicants herein stand convicted for the

offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 325, 307/34 of the IPC

vide judgment dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Pratapgarh.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defence that

the applicants herein have been falsely implicated in the case.

Inviting the court's attention towards the statements of Medical

Officer Dr. Pramod Jeman (P.W.-9) and Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11)

coupled with the X-ray report (Exhibit P-14) and final opinion

[2023/RJJD/010621] (2 of 4) [SOSA-126/2023]

report of the Doctor (Exhibit D-4), learned counsel pointed out

that the injured Hari Prakash had suffered one fracture on his

hand and other fracture on his leg, which are not on the vital part

of the body. Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11) has admitted in his cross-

examination that he had only expressed the possibility of fractures

of Hari Prakapsh being "likely" to fatal to his life. The prosecution

has failed to prove that any of the injuries caused to the Hari

Prakash were on the vital part of the body or were inflicted by any

deadly weapon. No definite opinion of the doctor is available on

the record. Hence, as per him, manifestly it is a case where the

applicants have been falsely implicated owing to prior enmity. He

submitted that the applicants were on bail during the course of

trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail so granted to them by

this Court. On these grounds, he implored the Court to allow the

application for Suspension of Sentence and direct to release of

applicants on bail during pendency of appeal.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the submission advanced by the defence counsel.

However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that

injuries were not on the vital part.

4. Any comment on the merits of the case at this stage may

prejudice the decision of the appeal. However, having regard to

the overall facts and circumstances as emergent from the record,

we are inclined to accept the instant application for Suspension of

Sentence.

5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

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

sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide

[2023/RJJD/010621] (3 of 4) [SOSA-126/2023]

judgment dated 08.02.2023 in Sessions Case No.09/2023

(52/2013) against the petitioner-applicants 1. Bala Ram S/o Shri

Gautam 2. Pushpendra @ Pushkar S/o Shri Bala Ram shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall

be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thosuand Only)

each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his

appearance in this court on 18.05.2023 and whenever ordered to

do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated

below:-

6. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of

January of every year till the appeal is decided. That if the

applicant(s) 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. Similarly, if the sureties change their

address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the

trial Court.

7. 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

[2023/RJJD/010621] (4 of 4) [SOSA-126/2023]

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High

Court for cancellation of bail.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 29-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)