Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Child In Conflict With Law X vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 September, 2024

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:37970-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 941/2024

Child In Conflict With Law X, aged about 23 years,R/o Piplara, Ps
Arthuna Dist. Banswara. (Lodged In Dist Jail Banswara)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     M. Devendar Sanwalot
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG, a/w
                                   Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

12/09/2024

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.07.2024 passed by

the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Banswara in Sessions

Case No.95/2018 (CIS No.104/2020):

      Offence               Sentence                                Fine
     147 of IPC         2 years' Simple          Rs.5,000/- and in default of
                         Imprisonment            which to further undergo three
                                                 months' S.I.
     148 of IPC     3   years'  simple Rs.5,000/- and in default of
                    imprisonment       which to further undergo three
                                       months' S.I.
 447/149 of IPC     3 months' simple Rs.500/- and in default of which
                    imprisonment     to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
 323/149 of IPC     1    year   simple Rs.1,000/- and in default of
                    imprisonment       which to further undergo one
                                       month' S.I.
 302/149 of IPC     Life Imprisonment            Rs.25,000/- and in default of
                                                 which to further undergo one
                                                 year' S.I.



 [2024:RJ-JD:37970-DB]                   (2 of 6)                    [SOSA-941/2024]

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the 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.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this

Court towards the order dated 12.05.2023 passed in respect of

the co-accused in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence

Application No.181/2023 (Basant Lal & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan) whereby the suspension of sentence application of

Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita has been granted whereas the

suspension of sentence application of Basant Lal and Prakash has

been dismissed. The order dated 12.05.2023 reads as under :-

"Qua applicants - Basant Lal and Prakash

1. Learned counsel for the applicants does not press the bail application qua applicants - Basant Lal and Prakash S/o Basant Lal.

2. The application seeking suspension of sentence qua applicants - Basant Lal and Prakash is dismissed as not pressed.

Qua applicants - Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita

1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 27.1.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.131/2018:

Offences            Sentence                       Fine
147 IPC             2 years R.I.                   Rs.2,000/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo 2
                                                   months R.I.
148 IPC             2 years R.I.                   Rs.3,000/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo 3
                                                   months R.I.
447/149 IPC         3 months R.I.                  Rs.500/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo one
                                                   month R.I.
323/149 IPC         1 year R.I.                    Rs.1,000/- and in default of


 [2024:RJ-JD:37970-DB]                   (3 of 6)                    [SOSA-941/2024]


                                                   which to further undergo 2
                                                   months R.I.
302/149 IPC         Life                           Rs.1,00,000/- and in default
                    Imprisonment                   of which to further undergo 6
                                                   months R.I.

2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. Qua applicants Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita, submissions have been made that co-accused Smt. Rangana W/o of Shanti Lal against whom similar allegations were made as against the applicants has been granted suspension of sentence by this Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.124/2023 and case of the present applicants is not different from said Smt. Rangana, wherein, the complainant in her statement made specific allegations that fatal injury on the body of deceased, were made by Basant Lal and Prakash and the only allegation against the present applicants were that they were part of unlawful assembly along with Smt. Rangana, Kalpesh and Kamal and against Kalpesh and Kamal, no charge-sheet was filed.

4. Further submissions were made that applicant - Savita was on bail during trial and applicant - Shanti Lal is in custody for over 5 years now, the hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and, therefore, applicants may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions.

6. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case and likelihood of hearing of the appeal taking substantially long time, without making observation on the merit, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants - applicants Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita during the pendency of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed qua applicants - Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita and it is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.131/2018 against the appellants

[2024:RJ-JD:37970-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-941/2024]

-applicants Shanti Lal and Smt. Savita, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 12/06/2023 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 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.

8. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-

applicants were 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 did not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that

court below has found that the fatal injury upon the deceased was

inflicted by Basant Lal and Prakash, and the allegations against

others were not of directly causing death. He further submits that

the appellant-applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for

suspension of sentence.

6. This Court, after carefully examining the para 45 and 46 of

the impugned order, does not find any reason to distinguish the

[2024:RJ-JD:37970-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-941/2024]

case of the present appellant-applicant from that of Shanti Lal and

Smt. Savita. Although at some places, carrying of a knife was

attributed to the present appellant-applicant, however, knife has

not been recovered from him. Thus, this Court deems it

appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-

applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

7. 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 Special

Judge, Children Court, Banswara in Sessions Case No.95/2018

(CIS No.104/2020)), against the appellant-applicant, namely,

Child in conflict with law 'X' S/o Basant 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 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.