Vikas Bishnoi @ Ugrasen vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 8073 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8073 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vikas Bishnoi @ Ugrasen vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 October, 2023

Bench: Farjand Ali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2176/2023

1. Sumit Bishnoi @ Gabbar S/o Shri Prathviraj, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. 408 Kailash Nagar Seeto Road Abohar Dist. Fazilka Punjab At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar

2. Sudhir S/o Shri Raseel Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chunniwali Dhani Ps Lalgarh Jatan Dist. Sri Ganganagar At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar

3. Amar S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Chunniwali Dhani Ps Lalgarh Jatan Dist. Sri Ganganagar At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar

----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Dharmpal S/o Shri Ladhuram, R/o Ward No. 9 Opposite Sanjay Vatika Purani Abadi Ps Jawahar Nagar Dist. Sri Ganganagar

----Respondents Connect with S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2118/2023

Vikas Bishnoi @ Ugrasen S/o Leelaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ravi Chowk, Ward No. 10, Purani Abaadi, Sriganganagar, Raj. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit Mr. Kunal Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP Mr. J.K. Bhadu

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 06/10/2023

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned District Judge,

District Shri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.16/2014

(CIS No.457/2014) whereby they were convicted and

(2 of 4) [CRLAS-2176/2023]

sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of seven years'

rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- under

Section 307/24 of IPC and lesser punishment for the other

offences under Sections 323/34 and 341 of IPC.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned

trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual

aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous

conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be

appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time,

therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be

granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the

prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing

the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. The incident took place in the year 2011. There was no

animosity of such degree which may induce or provoke the

petitioner to kill the victim rather it was a simple scuffle in

which the victim was clobbered by the appellants. As per the

injury report, the victim sustained one injury on his occipital

region. When he was examined on 11.03.2010 by the

Medical Jurist, who prepared Ex.P.11, as per which three

abrasions, two bruises and one lacerated wound were found

on the body of the victim. All the injuries were caused by

blunt object. The injury No.2 being a lacerated wound was on

(3 of 4) [CRLAS-2176/2023]

the occipital bone of the victim Sunil. Vide the letter (Ex.P-

12) prepared on 15.03.2010, the SHO asked the Medical

Jurist to give opinion regarding the nature of the injuries. The

Medical Jurist has opined that injuries Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6

were simple in nature. There was no X-ray report regarding

injury No.2 but at the later stage, CT Scan report got

prepared and as per which there was a minor fracture on

occipital bone. However, the Doctor (Medical Jurist) has

abstained from opining the nature of the injury. It is

subsequent thereto another opinion has been sought from

Dr. S.M. Batra who was not a Medical Jurist at the hospital

where the victim was treated medically. Thus, there appears

reasonable ground to entertain the plea that a false case has

been foisted or the nature and gravity of the offence has

deliberately been shown as aggravated. In this background,

hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time and

considering the overall submissions while refraining from

passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the

defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse

effect on hearing of the appeal, this Court is of the opinion

that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to

the accused-appellants.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

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

sentence passed by learned District Judge, District Shri

Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.16/2014 (CIS

No.457/2014) against the appellant-applicants- 1. Sumit

Bishnoi @ Gabbar S/o Shri Prathviraj, 2. Sudhir S/o

(4 of 4) [CRLAS-2176/2023]

Shri Raseel Kumar, 3. Amar S/o Shri Vijay Singh,

4. Vikas Bishnoi @ Ugrasen S/o Leelaram, shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they

shall be released on bail provided each of them execute a

personal bond in the 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 06.11.2023 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 applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.