Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:33360-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 57/2023
Shanti Lal S/o Shri Jalma Jhariya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Bhilwara, P.s. Jhadol, District Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R.Chhaparwal, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
06/10/2023
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 15/11/2022 passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Session Case
No.37/2019 (CIS No. 307/2019):
Offence Sentence Fine
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
months' S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred this application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release of
the applicant on bail.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
trial court fell in error in convicting the applicant. Submissions
[2023:RJ-JD:33360-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-57/2023]
have been made that conviction is based on the testimony of
daughter of applicant & deceased, P.W. 10, a nine years old child,
who stated that the applicant gave beating to her mother with
stick along with one Meetha Lal; her mother fell down and
applicant strangulated her. The said testimony of the child witness,
who admittedly was with in-laws of the applicant is not supported
by the postmortem report (Ex.10), wherein, though abrasions
were present on both sides of neck region, hyoid bone was intact
and the medical board opined that cause of death was mechanical
asphyxia.
4. Further, the two doctors, who conducted the postmortem,
P.W. 11 - Dr. Vardi Chand Katara and P.W.12 - Dr. Ramesh Chand
Katara, indicated that there was no ligature marks around the
neck of the deceased and in case deceased was strangulated by
hands, there would have been marks of fingers, however, no such
marks were found. Further, in their examination of the body, no
such information came their knowledge that the deceased died on
account of applying pressure on neck for a long time. Further her
tongue and eyes were normal, which clearly negates the theory of
applicant having strangulated his wife.
5. Further submissions have been made that the applicant is in
custody now for over four years. The appeal is likely to take
sufficiently long time and, therefore, the sentence of the
applicant-appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
submissions. It was submitted that the witness P.W. 10 is
daughter of the applicant & deceased and there was no reason for
[2023:RJ-JD:33360-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-57/2023]
her to implicate her father and, therefore, the application deserves
dismissal.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case
including the statements of witnesses i.e. daughter - P.W.10 and
Doctors, P.W.11 & P.W.12. The daughter has made one line
statement regarding the applicant pressing the neck of the
deceased and indications made in the postmortem report and
statements of two doctors, who had conducted the postmortem
regarding the status of the body, absence of ligature marks, hyoid
bone being intact, apparently the cause of death by strangulation
does not appear to be very clear.
8. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case,
without making any observations on merits of the case, we are
inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-
applicant Shanti Lal s/o Jalma Jhariya during the pendency of the
appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Session Case No.37/2019 (CIS
No. 307/2019) against the appellant-applicant Shanti Lal S/o
Jalma Jhariya shall remain 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/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this Court on 06/11/2023 and
[2023:RJ-JD:33360-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-57/2023]
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:
1. That he will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)
they will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
13. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
33-baweja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
