Rajasthan High Court
Phool Singh Son Of Lohre Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3984) on 23 January, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:3984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1728/2023
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3261/2023
Phool Singh Son of Lohre Lal, Resident Of Umreh, Police Station,
Bari, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Central
Jail, Sewar, District Bharatpur)
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rajaram Son Of Ramji Lal, Resident Of Loharra, Police
Station, Kailadevi, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
3. Ramji Lal Son Of Kajodya Meena, Resident Of Loharra,
Police Station, Kailadevi, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
23/01/2024
This Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application is
preferred against the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli in
Sessions Case No.58/2018, CIS No.58/2018, whereby, the accused-
appellant Phool Singh was convicted for the offence under
Sections 323, 341, 307 and 458 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that
accused-appellant has wrongly convicted under Sections 323, 341,
307 and 458 of I.P.C. He further submits that no firearm injury was
found on the injured at his finger by the concerned Medical Jurist.
[2024:RJ-JP:3984] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1728/2023]
PW-1 Rajaram has specifically stated the fact that accused-
appellant fired at him which hit at his palm resulting into injury at
his finger.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that the learned trial Court has acquitted the other four accused.
The specific role of accused-appellant using the firearm could not
be proved but despite that learned trial court convicted the
accused-appellant under Sections 323, 341, 307 and 458 of I.P.C.
He also submits that there is no examination from the Ballistic
Expert that injury No.2 was due to use of firearm. The only firearm
injury caused to the injured Rajaram was attributed to the accused
Gopal, who has been acquitted under Sections 341, 323 and 307
of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that injury No.1 is a lacerated wound present over the ring finger
of left hand with clotted blood. The concerned doctor PW-13
Laxmikant in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that all
the injuries apart from injury No.2 were found to be simple in
nature. There is no criminal antecedents against the accused-
appellant and in FIR No.393/2012, the accused-appellant has been
acquitted under Sections 325, 332 and 353 of I.P.C., so also the
decision of the appeal may take considerable, therefore, sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant may be suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
suspension of sentence application and submits that PW-1
Rajaram and other eye-witness PW-9 Ramraj have corroborated
the prosecution story. The accused-appellant Phool Singh was
[2024:RJ-JP:3984] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1728/2023]
apprehended at the place of occurrence on the same day and his
involvement is proved by PW-1 Rajaram and PW-9 Ramraj. The
learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant
under Sections 323, 341, 307 and 458 of I.P.C., therefore,
considering the gravity of offence, suspension of sentence
application may be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of
sentence and perused the material available on record.
Considering the fact that injury No.1 caused to PW-1 Rajaram
is attributed to the accused-appellant and after medical
examination that injury was found to be simple blunt in nature.
There is no opinion of Medical Jurist that the injury caused to PW-1
Rajaram at his finger was firearm injury. The accused-appellant
was on regular bail during entire trial and there is no allegation
that he breached the conditions, so also considering that hearing
of the appeal may take considerable time, this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded
to the accused-appellant during pendency of the instant appeal.
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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli
in Sessions Case No.58/2018, CIS No.58/2018 vide judgment dated
27.10.2023 against the appellant-applicant Phool Singh Son of
Lohre Lal, 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 the learned trial
[2024:RJ-JP:3984] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1728/2023]
Judge for his appearance in this court on 27.02.2024 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) change(s) the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address,
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
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.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
53-SURAJ KUMAR
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
