Rana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6460 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27303-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 193/2023

IN

D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 34/2021

1. Rana Ram S/o Sh. Loona Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Vaadi, R/o Meghwalon Ka Bass, Balesar Sattan, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

2. Lala Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Vaadi, R/o Meghwalon Ka Bass, Balesar Sattan, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R.Bishnoi, P.P.

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

Order

28/08/2023

This application seeking suspension of sentence has been

filed by the appellants in relation to the judgment dated

16/1/2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur

District in sessions case no. 62/2019, whereby, the appellants

were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each & in

default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months S.I.

[2023:RJ-JD:27303-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-193/2023]

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that

the entire case is based on the statements of P.W. 1 - Dinesh, the

complainant, and purported eye witnesses P.W.4 - Mahendra and

P.W.5 - Raju Ram.

Submissions have been made that the entire story in the

complaint/FIR and the version of P.W.4 & P.W.5 is on its face made

up inasmuch as there is inconsistency in the statements made as

the FIR indicated that the deceased Anil willingly went with the

applicants and, thereafter, immediately P.W.3 & P.W.4 had doubt

qua the applicants and deceased going on the motor cycle and

they followed them and found that the applicants were hitting the

deceased with stone and when P.W.4 - Mahendra shouted, they

left him.

Submissions have been made that recovery of stone at the

instance of the applicants is from an open place and doubtful

inasmuch as once the allegation is that on P.W.4 shouting, the

applicants ran away, there was no chance for them to conceal the

blood stained stone and as such, the entire story as found by the

trial court, based on the statements of P.W.1, P.W.4 & P.W.5 has no

basis and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants/applicants is

without any basis.

It was submitted that the applicants have already undergone

sentence for about 04 years & 11 months and hearing of the

appeal is likely to take time and, therefore, their sentence may be

suspended and they be released on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor contested the submissions. It was

submitted that the clothes of the applicants were blood stained

and they were having the blood of same group that of the

[2023:RJ-JD:27303-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-193/2023]

deceased - Anil and that the mobile phone of the deceased was

also recovered from the applicants and besides the evidence of

eye witnesses P.W.4 & P.W.5 is consistence, the applicants are not

entitled to any indulgence.

We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

In view of the fact that statements of P.W.4 & P.W.5 are

consistent despite exhaustive cross examination and the clothes of

the applicants were found to be blood stained with the blood of

same group that of the deceased - Anil and that the defense

sought to be taken by way of cross examination of witnesses

regarding motor cycle on which they were travelling skidding,

resulting in injuries suffered by the deceased having been found to

be wholly inconsistent as both the applicants have not suffered

any injury and it is not the case of the applicants that the motor

cycle in question also was damaged, without further commenting

on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to accept the

application seeking suspension of sentence.

In view of the above, the application for suspension of

sentence is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J

40-baweja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)