Subhash Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5554 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24652-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 217/2023

Sarjeet S/o Sukhram, Aged About 26 Years, Gorkhana, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

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

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1134/2022 Subhash Chandra S/o Sukhram, Aged About 31 Years, Gorkhana, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

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

----Respondent

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

03/08/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has submitted

that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing

the appellant-applicants for the offences under Section 498-A,

304-B & 323 of IPC vide impugned judgment.

[2023:RJ-JD:24652-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-217/2023]

3. Learned counsel has submitted that as a matter of fact no

such demand of dowry was ever made by the appellant-applicants

at any point of time. It is further submitted that the appellant-

applicants were living separately in separate houses and on the

date of the incident, some quarrel took place between the

appellant-applicant Subhash with the deceased as she refused to

prepare the meal and thereafter the appellant-applicant left his

house and behind that deceased consumed poisonous pesticides,

which resulted into her death.

4. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to

produce any definite evidence to conclude that there was demand

of dowry on part of the appellant-applicants. It is also argued that

it is a case of matrimonial dispute which is painted by the

prosecution as a dowry death. Learned counsel for the appellant-

applicants has also submitted that the trial court in its impugned

judgment has simply concluded that as the in-laws of the

appellant-applicants have not gifted them a good quality cow and,

therefore, the appellant-applicants have committed the crime. It is

argued that such finding of the trial court is without any basis

based on no evidence. It is further submitted that during trial,

appellant-applicants were on bail and did not flouted with any of

the conditions of bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for

suspension of sentence.

6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and substantial grounds taken in the appeal, this Court is of

the opinion that there are strong grounds for challenging the

[2023:RJ-JD:24652-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-217/2023]

judgment of conviction and as hearing of the appeal is likely to

take time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to

the appellant-applicants.

7. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed

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

substantive sentence passed by the Learned Additional Session

Judge No.2 Nohar District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated

15.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.60/2019 against appellant-

applicants Sarjeet S/o Sukhram & Subhash Chandra S/o

Sukhram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeals,

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

court on 04.09.2023 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:24652-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-217/2023]

8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the appellant-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal misc. Case related to original case in which the

appellant-applicants 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 appellant-applicants do not appear before the trial court, the

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

cancellation of bail.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 26-27/Nitin-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)