Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 268 (RAJ)

Bagta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-17

GOVIND MATHUR, NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. By this application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the conviction of the present applicants is founded on circumstantial evidence which is not leading to only conclusion about the involvement of the present applicants with the crime In question. It is pointed out that the trial court heavily relied upon the evidence adduced by Shri Jeeta Ram (PW-1) but from perusal of the facts stated by PW-17 Shri Bhagwan Ram, it is apparent that Jeeta Ram was present when the search was made for Dhagla Ram. He had also not disclosed that the dead body was lying at Always. The facts about meeting of the deceased with the accused persons were also not disclosed even at the time of lodging First Information Report though he was present before the police team. The recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons too are not reliable. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application in general. 3. Having considered the facts of the case, without making any observation on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant this application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. It is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Sessions Case No. 10/2015 vide judgment dated 07.12.2015 against the appellants-applicants (1) Bagta Ram s/o Dhagla Ram and (2) Budha Ram s/o Dhagla Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal provided each of them execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance in this Court on 29.03.2016 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions: 1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellants changes their place of residence, they will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly if sureties change his/her/their address, they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial court. 4. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellant was tried and convicted. 3. Similarly if sureties change his/her/their address, they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial court. 4. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the accused applicant does not appear before the trail court, the learned trial judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.