Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1009 (RAJ)

Jubeda v. State, Through PP

2019-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentence and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant-appellant Smt. Jubeda, vehemently and fervently urged that the trial court acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 304 B IPC. He contended that the Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and the dying declaration Ex.P/34 of the deceased, if seen in entirety, clearly indicate that the accused applicant poured water and tried to douse the fire of the deceased which had been alighted by the co-accused Khanju Khan after pouring kerosene on her body. He urges that the allegation made in the Parcha Bayan and dying declaration that the accused applicant supplied the kerosene container to the principal accused Khanju Khan is nothing but an embellishment and deserves to be discarded because had there been any intention on part of the accused applicant to kill the deceased, then, she would not have made the active attempt to douse the fire by pouring water. He thus urges that the applicant, being a woman, who is in custody since 24.7.2014, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Hari Singh, learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bhati. They urged that there is categoric allegation of the deceased in her Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and dying declaration Ex.P/34 that the accused applicant handed over the container of kerosene to the principal accused Khanju Khan who poured the liquid on the body of the deceased and set her to fire. They thus, urged that the accused appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. The entire prosecution case is founded on two statements of the deceased i.e. Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and dying declaration Ex.P/34 of the deceased Smt. Shahnaz. In both statements, Shahnaz expressed that she and her mother in law (the applicant herein) were having a tussle over household chores. 5. The entire prosecution case is founded on two statements of the deceased i.e. Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7 and dying declaration Ex.P/34 of the deceased Smt. Shahnaz. In both statements, Shahnaz expressed that she and her mother in law (the applicant herein) were having a tussle over household chores. She alleged that the applicant handed over the kerosene container to the principal accused Khanju Khan who poured the same on her body and set her to fire. Thereafter, the applicant tried to douse the fire by pouring water upon her body. This conduct of the applicant in trying to douse the fire clearly creates a genuine doubt in the mind of the Court that she never intended to kill the deceased. 6. Be that as it may. The observations made by this Court at this stage may prejudice to the final outcome of the appeal but without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the prolonged custody suffered by the applicant who is a woman, we are inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sojat, Pali vide judgment dated 08.05.2015 in Sessions Case No. 10/2014 (23/2014) against the appellant-applicant Jubeda W/o Ahamad Khan shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance in this court on 03.05.2019 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. 8. 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. 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(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.