Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37545-DB] (1 of 4) [SOSA-245/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 245/2024
Ramesh S/o Kachra, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Tamatiya,
P.s. Motagaon, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (At Present In
Central Jail, Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
10/09/2024
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Session Case
No.45/2021 :
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo one
year' R.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred this application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:37545-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-245/2024]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that a
report was lodged on 12.11.2020 by the complainant Lalit that his
sister Smt. Neema was married to Vinod 13 years ago. On the day
of the report, Gautam informed about him about Neema's death,
stating that her skin was peeled off and her neck was broken.
3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant further submits
that not a single prosecution witness has supported the case of
the prosecution. The critical witnesses, namely, PW-1 Raoji, PW-2
Raju, PW-3 Dinesh, PW-9 Shanti & PW-10 Vinod, have turned
hostile. He also submits that the petitioner has been in custody
since 22.12.2020. Furthermore, he points out that there was a
discrepancy regarding the utensil allegedly used in the crime.
3.2 Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that a
complete analysis of the statements do not indicate any direct or
corroborative evidence against the present petitioner. He submits
that while a presumption has been drawn as per Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, the house was inhabited by numerous family
members, and thus, the petitioner alone cannot be held guilty
based solely on this presumption.
4. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposes the
application for suspension of sentence, but is unable to refute the
aforesaid factual matrix.
5. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the
substantive sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant during
the pendency of the appeal on the following amongst other
counts:-
[2024:RJ-JD:37545-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-245/2024]
(i) All relevant witnesses have turned hostile;
(ii) The presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act cannot
be applied against only one person when multiple family members
are present there;
(iii) The statement of the Investigating Officer does not indicate
any investigation connecting the present petitioner, who is the
brother-in-law of the deceased, with the crime in question,
particularly given that it was a joint family; and
(iv) The petitioner has been in custody since 2020.
6. 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 Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Banswara, vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 in
Session Case No.45/2021, against the appellant-applicant,
namely, Ramesh S/o Kachra, 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 14.10.2024 and
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 change 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:37545-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-245/2024]
7. 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.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
40-sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
