Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2023
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Munnuri Laxman
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 737/2023
Pradeep S/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Sukartal, Bhopan, District Mujaffarnagar (Up) (At Present
Lodged At District Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Lal Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Chapparwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
07/11/2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second
application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued that
the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the
appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is submitted that
the prosecution has failed to produce any eye witness of the
incident to prove the charge that the appellant-applicant has
committed murder of the deceased on the intervening night of 26 th
and 27th March, 2014. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant
has further submitted that trial court has also erred in placing
reliance on the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW-4) and Naku Meena
(PW-5) to give a finding that as per the said witnesses, the
appellant-applicant was last seen with the deceased. It is also
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-737/2023]
submitted that the said witnesses are not reliable as it is
impossible for them to identify the appellant-applicant because
numbers of drivers and attendants used to visit the hotel/dhaba
where the incident took place.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted
that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact
that apart from the deceased and the appellant-applicant, several
other truck drivers and attendants were there on the dhaba,
where the incident took place.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
recovery of the tyre lever at the instance of the appellant-
applicant is also doubtful. It is further submitted that the said
recovery was affected after around one and half month and that
too from an open place. It is also submitted that the missing
mobile phones of the deceased were also not recovered by the
prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted
that the appellant-applicant is in custody from last more than 9
years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus,
prayed the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the
trial court may be suspended.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the instant second application for suspension of sentence
and argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
appellant-applicant by producing cogent and reliable evidence.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that witnesses
Shyam Singh (PW-4) and Naku Meena (PW-5) have identified the
appellant-applicant, who was in the company of deceased on the
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-737/2023]
day of incident. It is further submitted that the owner of the
transport company namely Kalpesh (PW-8) has also identified the
appellant-applicant and verified that he accompanied the deceased
and was with him on the day of incident.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is case of
brutal murder and looking to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by
the trial court is not liable to be suspended.
Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and looking to the gravity of the offence, we are not
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellant
by the trial court.
Hence, this second application for suspension of sentence is
dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
30-Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
