Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1648 (RAJ)

DHARMENDRA JAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-07-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence. Perused the material on record. 2. Learned P.P. at the outset submitted that he does not desire to file a written reply to the application for S.O.S. and would be advancing oral arguments in opposition to the prayer for suspension of sentence. 3. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel urges that the appellant was not even present in the house at the time of incident. The petitioner and Smt. Preeti had entered into an inter-caste marriage and there existed hardly any such dispute between them which could instigate the applicant to set fire to his wife Smt. Preeti. Drawing attention of the Court to Ex.P-5 the Parcha Bayan of Preeti recorded by Tehsildar, Mr. Kumbhat urges that in the said statement it is pertinently recorded that the appellant's brother scolded the deceased as to why she has taken such a step. He urges that as a matter of fact the injured was perturbed because she was not able to conceive even after ten years of the marriage with the appellant and that is why she set fire to herself. The appellant is in custody since 2.3.2015 and has strong grounds to challenge the impugned judgment. As per him since hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future, therefore, he prays that the sentences awarded to the appellant deserve to be suspended. Learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant appellant. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the F.I.R. came to be lodged after 5 days of the incident. In the portion E to F of Ex.P-5 the statement of the injured Smt. Preeti recorded by the Tahsildar, it is stated that the appellant's brother scolded her as to why she had taken such a step. The injured received burns only on the frontal part of the body. Thus, the possibility of kerosene having been poured by the victim on her own person before setting herself to fire in order to commit suicide cannot be ruled out. 4. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused petitioner. 5. 4. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, vide judgment dated 23.11.2016 in Sessions Case No.71/2015 against the applicant-appellant Dharmendra Jain, 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. 40,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 28.8.2017 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their 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. 6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.