Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2186 (RAJ)

Mahendra Pal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-11-06

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor in the present application filed under Section 389 Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence and gone through the judgment dated 30.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 13/2008 (47/2008) whereby the accused-appellants Mahendra Pal S/o Om Prakash and Ramesh @ Mulakhraj @ Mulkhi S/o Om Prakash have been convicted for offences under Sections 307/149, 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them, for offence under Section 307/149 Indian Penal Code to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code to undergo three years' simple imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment whereof to undergo further 15 days' simple imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants vehemently contended that the applicants should be released on bail because all the injured persons have compromised with all the accused persons, including appellants and the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons from charges of offence under Sections 323, 325 Indian Penal Code and no case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code i.e. for attempt to murder has been made out against the accused-appellants. learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submitted that injured Krishna Lal (PW-2) was medically examined by Dr. Amar Singh Rathore (PW-19) and at that time, only two injuries were found on his body, which were mentioned in his injury report Ex.P-9. As per statement of Dr. Amar Singh, he found only two injuries on the body of injured Krishna Lal one was swelling on his right ankle and second was swelling' on his forearm and right breast. As per his statement, Krishna Lal injured did not complain of any pain in the head of injury except two injuries at the time of medical examination. However, learned trial Court has relied on third injury caused on the head of Krishna Lal, which is not justifiable. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of conviction and sentence and opposed the prayer of the accused-appellants for suspension of the sentence. 4. However, learned trial Court has relied on third injury caused on the head of Krishna Lal, which is not justifiable. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of conviction and sentence and opposed the prayer of the accused-appellants for suspension of the sentence. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded against the accused-appellants. 5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence moved by the accused-appellants under Section 389 Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded vide judgment dated 30.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 13/2008 (47/2008) against the accused-appellants 1) Mahendra Pal S/o Om Prakash and 2) Ramesh @ Mulakhraj @ Mulkhi S/o Om Prakash, shall remain suspended till final disposal of aforesaid appeal provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 6.12.2012 and whenever called upon to do so; with the incorporation in their bail bond that as and when they shall shift from their place of residence, they shall intimate to this Court and their counsel about new place of their residence.Application allowed. *******