Chamna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3866 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013105]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 103/2023

Chamna Ram son of Shri Hanna Ji, aged 48 years, resident of Village Bhadruna, P.S. Jhab, District Jalore. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Jalore)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Kumbhat Mr. S.K. Maru For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP Mr. Vikram Choudhary, for the complainant.

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

Order

02/05/2023

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Chamna Ram, who has

been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under

sections 302, 120B, 341, 148 of the IPC by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Sanchore, District Jalore in Sessions Case No. 438/2015

(54/2020) vide judgment dated 02.08.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that complainant

Karsanram (PW-2) in the first information report (Ex.P-7) had alleged

that total 9 named persons Magna, Bhava, Bhanwara, Mahendra,

Bhagwana, Chamna, Bhikha, Shankara, Mafaram and some others,

inflicted injuries upon the person of complainant's father Masararam

with rods and lathis resulting into his murder; that Out of these, four

[2023/RJJD/013105] (2 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023]

persons Mafaram, Maganaram, Shankararam and Mahendra respectively

were not even charge-sheeted and only omnibus allegations were made

in the first information report against the appellant; that the

prosecution did not make any effort to implead the accused who were

exonerated by the investigation officer by filing an application under

section 319 of the Crpc; that Complainant P.W.2 Karsan Ram, in his

cross examination has deposed that Magna Ram, Mahendra Kumar,

Shankara Ram were the persons who inflicted injuries to his father

using sharp edged weapons but in the later part of the statement, he

has involved appellant Chamna Ram by stating that he also inflicted

injuries upon his father by a sharp edged weapon, whereas as per

recovery memo (Ex.P-24), an iron rod has been recovered from him;

that Motbir witnesses of recovery memo Bhuraram (PW-12) and Praga

ram (PW-13) have been declared hostile and both of them have not

supported the recovery of rod from the appellant.

3. It is further argued that according to the FSL report, no blood

stains were found on the said rod; that another eyewitness Dalpat

(PW-4) had wrongly identified the all the accused present in the court.

Learned counsel has also relied upon the statements of Dr. Balwant

Singh and (PW-7) and Dr. Ravindra kumar (PW-17) coupled with

postmortem report and argued that according to the statements of the

doctors, main injury number 3 on the head of the deceased could not

have been caused by an iron rod but could only have been caused by

some sharp edged weapon; that even if the evidence produced by the

prosecution is to be accepted then, the case against the appellant does

not travel beyond the scope of section 304 part 2 of the IPC; that the

appellant is in custody for the last about 8 and half years.

[2023/RJJD/013105] (3 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023]

4. Lastly, he prays that application for suspension of sentence of co-

accused Bhanwarlal, Talkaram, Bhavaram and Bhagwanaram have

already been allowed by this Court; that the appellant has an arguable

case and hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficient time therefore,

the sentences awarded to the appellant may be suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel

for the complainant has opposed the application seeking suspension of

sentences and stated that the Masraram has been murdered by causing

fatal injuries on his head and there are direct allegations against the

appellant also. Therefore, looking to the nature of the offences,

sentences awarded to the appellant may not be suspended.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and also gone through the complete record as

well as judgment impugned.

7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances available on

record and particularly the submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant, considering the prolonged custody of the appellant and the

bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal, we are of the opinion

that the appellant-applicant has available to him strong grounds for

assailing the impugned judgment. Thus, without commenting on merit

of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the

appellant and release him on bail during pendency of the appeal.

8. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Sanchore, District Jalore vide

judgment dated 02.08.2022 in Sessions Case No. 438/2015 (54/2020)

against the appellant Chamna Ram S/o Hanna Ji shall remain

[2023/RJJD/013105] (4 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023]

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/- (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

02.06.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the

appeal on the conditions indicated below.

9. That he 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, he will give in writing his 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.

10. 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 court, the learned trial

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

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 24-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)