Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dashrath Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 980/2024
Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Rewant Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Near Water Tank, Kheme Ka Kua Shashtri Nagar Jodhpur.
(Lodged At Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampati Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
17/09/2024
1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Case),
Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.64/2017 :
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo six
months' R.I.
2. The applicant-appellant has preferred the application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences during the
pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-980/2024]
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2017, a written
report was furnished at P.S. Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur by the
complainant Mohan Singh stating therein that his sister Durga
Kanwar was married on 07.03.2011 and out of the said wedlock a
male child was born, who is now four years' old. The complaint
also carried the fact that at an earlier point of time, the deceased
was undergoing four months' of pregnancy, but the same was
aborted. The deceased is the wife of the accused Dashrath Singh
and sister of the complainant. On 21.07.2017, accused Darshrath
Singh went to his in-laws house to take his wife back who had
gone to her parents' house and they were returning on
22.07.2017 in the morning. It was informed to his brother that
the vehicle i.e. car in which they were travelling has caught fire
and she has been given medical treatment and she is now well.
Mohan Singh asked them, if he can come and meet his sister but
the family of the accused refused and asked him to come on the
next day. Despite refusal by the accused family, one of the family
members went to meet Durga Kanwar. He met the deceased lady,
who claimed that she was well. At about 2:10 am at night Rewant
Singh (father-in-law of the deceased) telephonically informed that
Durga Kanwar has suddenly fell ill and when they reached there
they found that she has already expired.
4. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the vehicle caught fire and while the treatment was going
on, sleeping pills were given to Durga Kanwar which has resulted
into her death by smothering. Learned Senior Counsel also
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-980/2024]
pointed out the child is four years' old, therefore, there is a
difficulty in his upbringing. Learned Senior Advocate also pointed
out that the accidental fire had nothing to do with the death in
question and it was only due to over-medication which resulted in
death by smothering, which has also been agreed upon by the
Doctor that in cases where a person is under deep sleep then he
can get smothered.
5. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that seven years'
custody has already been undergone by the accused and thus
prolonged custody is also a ground for release of the applicant,
who was serving in paramilitary force. Learned counsel for the
applicant further pointed out that there is no motive behind the
crime and the prosecution is unable to point out any reason why
such an act could be attributed to the present applicant. He
further submits that Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not
attract in the present case because in the house where the
incident occurred, other family members were also present and
thus the presumption of the applicant having caused the incident
is not correct.
6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the applicant
was not present on the spot, as per his own version he was at his
uncle's house and reached the spot of incident only when his
mother called him in the morning that the Durga Kanwar had
expired.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposes the application for suspension of sentence and submits
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-980/2024]
that it is a clear case of deliberate and brutal killing of the wife
Durga Kanwar by the accused-husband.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that it is the
applicant-husband who tried to burn her because there was one
petrol bottle and a matchstick box recovered from the place of
incident.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the MTO report
does not suggest any accidental fire in the vehicle in question and
thus, the vehicle in question caught fire when the applicant-
appellant was taking back his wife. The said fact itself denotes
that there was a deliberate attempt by him to kill her at that spot
but since he did not materialize his plan he took the lady back to
his home and, thereafter, at the late night smothered her which
caused breaking of her tooth and also caused injuries on her face.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case of brutal
killing of the wife and Section 106 of the Evidence Act has been
rightly invoked by the respondent. He further submits that the
motive alone cannot be a ground for giving any kind of leniency
towards the accused in the case at hand.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
12. This Court after conjoint consideration on the submissions
made, is of the firm opinion that the chain of events which
includes the car catching fire when the accused was taking the
lady to his own house and such fire having not been attributed to
any accidental fire but is directly attributed to the petrol in the
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-980/2024]
bottle and the matchstick box, clearly indicates that the applicant-
husband wanted to kill his wife.
13. This Court is also convinced that smothering which is an
admitted fact could not have occurred to a healthy woman just
because she had taken some medicines and, therefore, the reason
arrived at by the Trial Court for the conviction of the applicant-
appellant is justified.
14. Though in ordinary case seven years' custody is a long time
and this Court could have considered grant of bail but the manner
in which the brutality has been committed and the consecutive
attempts upon the life of the lady in which the second attempt
became successful that too in a brutal manner of smothering,
clearly indicates the state of mind of the applicant-appellant.
15. This Court is conscious of the precedent law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi Vs. State of
U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024,
decided on 05.04.2024), wherein it has been held that for exercise
of the powers under Section 389 Cr.P.C., it would not be
appropriate to consider only the factum of sufferance of
incarceration for a particular period, rather the other relevant
factors, including the gravity of the offence, also have to be taken
into account.
16. Thus, in view of the above and taking into consideration the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant-
appellant in this case.
[2024:RJ-JD:38238-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-980/2024]
17. Consequently the present application for suspension of
sentence under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
174-Ramesh/PoonamS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
