Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khaturam vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:22454-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1433/2024
Khaturam S/o Pemiya Bargot Meena, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Lodawal Pala Oda P.S. Aspur, District
Dungarpur (At Present Lodged In Dungarpur Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
09/05/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.03.2009 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Dungarpur, in
Sessions Case No.50/2007 (44/2007):
Offence Sentence Fine
450 IPC 7 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo three
months' S.I.
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo three
months' S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the 2 nd application for
suspension of sentence under Section 430 B.N.S.S. for suspension
[2025:RJ-JD:22454-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1433/2024]
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a complaint
was lodged by Dhuliya on 05.01.2007 regarding an incident at
about 02:30 AM at night when he heard the cries coming from the
house of Lembia, when he went there, he saw that there were
Lembia, his wife Devli, daughter Savita and elder brother Wagla
were present. He also narrated that there were injuries on the
head of Lembia and he was bleeding and then he was taken to the
hospital at Sagwara and thereafter referred to Udaipur. The
complainant narrated that he asked Devli and he said that there
was a person who came and caused the injury by sharp weapon.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused is
well known to the family members and thus the First Information
Report not naming him indicates that it was an after-thought to
create eye witnesses in the case.
3.2 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
complainant became hostile witness being examined as PW-2. He
further submits that once the basic chain of the events is broken
and the case of prosecution that the family members present
particularly, the wife of the deceased Devli, then filing the FIR
without naming anyone, immediately creates a doubt in the story
of the prosecution.
3.3 Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that,
however, apart from such factual matrix, there is a prolonged
custody of about 9 years 6 months and 26 days.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor affirms the custody period but
submits that PW-5 Smt. Devli is an absolute witness along with
[2025:RJ-JD:22454-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1433/2024]
PW-3 Savita who have supported the case of the prosecution.
However, learned Public Prosecutor is unable to explain as to in
what circumstances, the initiation of the case was not with the
name of Khaturam who was said to be known to the family
members.
5. This Court, on consideration of the statements of PW-1, PW-
2, PW-3 and PW-5 as well as keeping into consideration the
prolonged custody of 9 years 6 months and 26 days and the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, is inclined to
suspend substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant during
the pendency of the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Dungarpur, in Sessions Case
No.50/2007 (44/2007), against the appellant-applicant, namely,
Khaturam S/o Pemiya Bargot Meena, 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 09.07.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:22454-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1433/2024]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)
they will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
7. 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-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
13-ajayS/Abhishek-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
