Taga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7223 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29667-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 243/2023

Taga Ram S/o Jeeva Jee, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Padiv, Police Station Kalandri, District Sirohi (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Sikander Khan.
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG, with
                                   Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal, AAAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Judgment

14/09/2023

1. This is the second application for suspension of sentence.

2. The first application for suspension of sentence (appeal) bail

application preferred by the applicant-appellant was dismissed

vide order dated 14.07.2022.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has drawn

attention of this Court to the record and particularly the site plan.

5. Learned counsel has tried to make a submission that the site

plan reflected that the eye witnesses particularly P.W.-2 who was

the author of the F.I.R. by no stretch of imagination could have

seen the well in question because in the F.I.R. as well as in the

[2023:RJ-JD:29667-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-243/2023]

statements, the distance from the well which has been established

is more than what an ocular contact could have been maintained

by him with the occurrence in question.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that

there is no recovery of any kind of weapon from the present

appellant-applicant whereas lathis have been recovered from other

co-accused and thus, the co-accused has a better case than them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant also submitted

that on a conjoint reading of statements of the prosecution

witnesses particularly P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, it reveals that the

accused was not present on the site and has been implicated for

no reason.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant vehemently

submitted that there is no reason that why such heinous crime

could have been committed by the present appellant-applicant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that

though he had withdrawn the earlier application for Suspension of

Sentences but at this juncture he presses the same on merits.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that on the last occasion

i.e. 14.07.2022, the first application for Suspension of Sentence

was dismissed after arguments on behalf of the appellant-

applicant were made for some time and the submissions which

were being made today by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant, were raised on the earlier occasion also. He further

submitted that a conjoint consideration of the statements of P.W.2

& P.W.4 which are part of the record, clearly reflects the struggle

which has resulted into the accused persons carrying the deceased

[2023:RJ-JD:29667-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-243/2023]

and throwing him into the well. He submitted that it is is a heinous

crime.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

looking to the fact that at this stage particularly when the prima

facie case is made out against the appellant-applicant and

conviction is also there, so also looking to the statement of P.W.-2,

P.W.-4 and P.W.-10 as well as the F.I.R., this Court is not inclined

to suspend the sentences awarded to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the present second application for Suspension of

Sentence (Appeal) is dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J

1-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)