Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Latif vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:20475-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 234/2025
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 195/2024
Abdul Latif S/o Nasrudeen @ Nisar Khan, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Kasaiyo Ka Mohalla, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur.
(At Present Lodged in Sub Jail, Merta.)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Rajvi with Mr. Vikas Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
Mr. Vishal Sharma.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
28/04/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced vide judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Merta in
Sessions Case No.26/2019 (10/2019).
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. Mr. D.S. Rajvi assisted by Vikas Joshi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, submit that the present
[2025:RJ-JD:20475-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-234/2025]
accused-appellant is alleged to have committed murder and also
attempted suicide.
3.1 Learned counsel have drawn the attention of this Court to
the statement of PW-3 Aslam, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
wherein he deposed that the door, which is alleged to have been
closed from inside, which became the prime point of initiation of
investigation culminating into conviction was in fact not broken
open, but was forcibly opened without damage. The subsequent
assertion that the door was broken is contended to be an
improvement upon the original statement.
3.2 Learned counsel have further taken this Court to the
testimony of PW-18 Puran Mal, the investigating officer, wherein
the learned counsel tried to impress upon the Court that the
investigating officer had expressed a firm opinion that the door
was not broken open.
3.3 Learned counsel have also pointed out discrepancies in
Exhibit P-23, particularly concerning the length and identification
of knife alleged used in the offence. Additionally, reference has
been made to Exhibit P-26, the injury report of the accused, with
the submission that such kind of grievous injuries sustained by the
appellant could not have been inflicted by himself. Exhibit P-27,
further records a recommendation for referral to a higher medical
center. Learned counsel have also taken this Court to Exhibit P-22,
the site plan, contending that there are categorical and clear
discrepancies in the site plan, which do not support the
prosecution story.
[2025:RJ-JD:20475-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-234/2025]
3.4 Learned counsel submit that it was Ummeda Ram, whose
name was written in blood by the deceased at the scene and the
whole needle of suspicion primarily pointed toward Ummeda Ram,
who had also been visiting the deceased lady. Learned counsel
have also taken this Court toward Exhibit P-20, a letter recovered
from the scene, which states that Ummeda Ram was responsible
for the death of both persons.
4. Conversely, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel representing the complainant submit that PW-3 Aslam and
PW-5 Arbaz have categorically deposed before the learned Trial
Court that the present accused used to visit their residence, where
he engaged in altercation with his mother. The witness further
aver that the present accused had earlier attempted to kill his
mother, but somehow, upon their arrival, the attempt did not
culminate in its outcome.
4.1 They additionally contend that the accused frequently
threatened that he would kill both the witness and his mother.
They also submit that such statements clearly indicate that the
door was closed from inside and the premise was accessible only
to the deceased lady and the present accused.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court, upon complete consideration of the facts of the
case, finds that there is a credible evidence in the testimony of
PW-3 & PW-5, which indicates that the door was closed from
[2025:RJ-JD:20475-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-234/2025]
inside and the house was accessible only to the accused and the
deceased lady.
6.1 This Court further observes that the other aspects which
have been raised including the letter in question, the credibility of
the description of the knife, the injury report of the accused and
the site plan, have been reasonably explained by the learned Trial
Court int is judgment.
6.2 This Court also finds that the previous conduct of the
accused of threatening and attempting to kill, as per PW-5, clearly
correlates with the act committed by the accused. The father of
the accused however, mentioned that the incident wherein the
accused allegedly beat the deceased-Sharifan occurred one year
prior.
6.3 This Court discerns a direct nexus between the anger of the
present accused, which has been established by the prosecution,
had prolonged reflections in the statements of various prosecution
witnesses. The access to the house on that particular date, as per
the prosecution witnesses, may have been improvised in their
testimony, but the fact that the accused had access to the house,
being the only person with access other than the deceased lady, is
well supported by the prosecution witnesses.
7. In light of the aforesaid factual matrix and looking into the
gravity of crime, this Court is not inclined to suspend the
substantive suspension of the appellant at this stage.
8. Consequently, the instant application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:20475-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-234/2025]
9. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the
criminal appeal may be posted for final hearing in the Month of
August, 2025.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
44-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
