Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhuraram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 February, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:9295-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1397/2024
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.251/2024
1. Bhuraram S/o Bhutaram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Doli Fali Bhimana Police Station Rohida District Sirohi
Rajasthan. At Present In Judicial Custody At Central Jail
Jodhpur.
2. Mohanlal S/o Sayebaram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident
Of Vatera Police Station Rohida Dist Sirohi Rajasthan At
Present In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Surana.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
RESERVED ON :: 07/02/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 21/02/2025
(Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.):
1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.06.2024 passed by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in
Sessions Case No.09/2022:
Offence Sentence Fine
397 read with 7 Years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- and in default of
397/34 IPC which to further undergo Two
Months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:9295-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1397/2024]
460/34 IPC 10 Years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo Two
Months' S.I.
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo Fiev
Months' S.I.
2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the instant
application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences
during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.
3. The salient facts of the case, as observed by this Court, are
that a complaint was filed alleging that on 29.11.2021, at
midnight, at Village Dhumbaria near river, the complainant's uncle
Nainu Das was performing religious rites at a Hanuman Ji Temple.
It was alleged that some persons entered the temple with the
intention to commit robbery and brutally assaulted the Temple
Priest Nainu Das, inflicting injuries to his hands, eyes and back,
which ultimately resulted in his death.
4. Mr. Arpit Surana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and
the circumstantial evidence have not been able to point out any
conclusive finding, which could disentitle the present appellants
from getting released on bail.
4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that PW-10 Sohan Ram,
who was first to reach the site of the incident, merely testified to
hearing sounds of "Mare Re - Mare Re" from Nainu Das, and thus,
diminishing credibility of his evidence for conviction of the present
accused-appellants.
4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that other prosecution
witnesses, namely PW-1 Ghewar Das and PW-4 Bhanwar Das
[2025:RJ-JD:9295-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1397/2024]
made their statements not as eyewitnesses, but as individuals
who arrived at the scene subsequently.
4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution
witnesses namely Kalu Das, Jabar Das and Veer Das, who were
examined as PW-3, PW-7 & PW-8 respectively, turned hostile
thereby strengthening the appellants' case for bail.
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the circumstantial
evidence lacks sufficient credibility to sustain the conviction, and
thus, it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence of the
applicants-appellants.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for both parties and have perused the material available
on record.
7. This Court finds that the conviction has been run under
Section 34 of the IPC, which has a wide ambit and the
involvement of multiple accused is writ large on the facts of the
case. The applicants-appellants have been in custody for a very
short period. The crime committed is of a heinous nature and the
chronology of event does not warrant any interference with the
conviction order at this stage.
8. The common intention is clearly reflected in the facts and
circumstances, which decisively indicate the commission of crime.
Prima facie, the presence of the accused persons at the time of
incident has been well established and they were fully prepared to
[2025:RJ-JD:9295-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1397/2024]
commit the crime in question, and therefore, the conviction under
Sections 460, 394 read with 397, 302/34 IPC have been rightly
invoked, this Court is not inclined to suspend the substantive
sentence of the appellants at this stage, given the heinous and
brutal nature of the crime.
9. Consequently, the instant application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed.
10. Needless to say that the observations made by this Court in
the present order will not prejudice the consideration of the
appeal.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
24-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
