Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:21841-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 117/2025
1. Anda Ram S/o Shri Gajja Ram, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
2. Oma Ram S/o Shri Gajja Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
3. Kana Ram S/o Shri Chuna Ram, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
4. Kheema Ram S/o Shri Asha Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
5. Rugha Ram S/o Shri Asha Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
6. Sohan Lal S/o Shri Anda Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
7. Pappu Ram S/o Shri Chunni Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhakriwala, Police Station Raohat,
District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
Mr. Karan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
07/05/2025
[2025:RJ-JD:21841-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-117/2025]
1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323,
325, 341, 302 r/w 149 of IPC vide judgment dated 26.09.2024
passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pali in Sessions
Case No.68/2015 :
2. The appellant-applicants have 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. Brief facts of the case indicate that the incident occurred on
23.06.2013 at about 8:30 P.M. The parties involved were close
relatives engaged in a property dispute, specifically regarding a
water storage tank. It is alleged that the accused persons, with
common intention, attacked the deceased with an axe, dharia and
lathis, causing his death.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants submits that
there is a cross case and cross injuries, and both the families
emanate from the same ancestor. He further submits that there is
not even a single injury of incised nature from a sharp weapon on
the body of the deceased or the complainant party.
4.1 Learned counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the
statement of PW-5 Dr. Jitendra Kumar and in his cross-
examination, he has admitted that all the 11 injuries were not
sufficient to cause death.
4.2 Learned counsel has also pointed out that all the accused
persons were on bail during trial for a long time since 2013 except
for the custody period of three years. The custody report in reply
of the State also indicates the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:21841-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-117/2025]
4.3 Learned counsel further submits that there does not seem to
be any clear intention to cause death looking into the injuries and
at best, it would be a free-fight between the two families over a
common property. He also submits that no weapons have been
used except lathi. .
4.4 Learned counsel further submits that for the similar incident,
the sentence of Smt. Papli, Smt. Sua and Smt. Seeta have already
been suspended by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal
Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1281/2024 vide
order dated 02.12.2024.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant oppose the application for suspension of sentence on
the ground that it was a premeditated attack on the deceased and
his family members, and the number of injuries caused indicates
that there was an intention to cause death.
6. This Court, on conjoint consideration of the custody period,
the statement of PW-5 Dr. Jitendra Kumar, the submissions made
by learned counsel for the applicant-appellants, and the fact that
they are close family members who entered into the fight because
of a common property dispute, and also noting that no specific
injury has been attributed to any of the accused applicants-
appellants specifically, deems it appropriate to suspend the
substantive sentence of the appellant-applicants 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 Additional
Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.68/2015, against the
[2025:RJ-JD:21841-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-117/2025]
appellants-applicants, namely, (1) Anda Ram S/o Shri Gajja
Ram, (2) Oma Ram S/o Shri Gajja Ram, (3) Kana Ram S/o
Shri Chuna Ram, (4) Kheema Ram S/o Shri Asha Ram, (5)
Rugha Ram S/o Shri Asha Ram, (6) Sohan Lal S/o Shri
Anda Ram, and (7) Pappu Ram S/o Shri Chunni Lal, shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and
they shall be released on bail, provided each of them execute 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 their
appearance in this court on 03.07.2025 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.
8. 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-applicants does not appear before the trial court,
[2025:RJ-JD:21841-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-117/2025]
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
68-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
