Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1149 (RAJ)

Jangir Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-15

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Shardul Bishnoi representing the accused-applicant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The applicant was not named in Ex.P/43 - Parcha Bayan of Brajlal Sharma (P.W. 5), who has been considered the most reliable witness of the prosecution in the impugned judgment. He urged that Brajlal (P.W. 5) was examined twice during the trial. In his first statement, he did not attribute any specific overt act to the accused-applicant. He further urged that principal accused i.e. Nabbu Khan who is alleged to have snatched the gun of Maniram was not chargedsheeted by the police and Kashmir who is alleged to have taken the gun from Nabbu and fired the same towards the complainant party, has been acquitted by the trial court. He urges that the case is of wholesale over implication of accused persons. Five accused named in Ex.P/43 - Parcha Bayan of Brajlal (P.W. 5), to whom specific allegations were attributed, have been acquitted by the trial court and thus, as per Mr. Bishnoi, the applicant has strong case so as to assail the impugned judgment. He thus, implored the Court to accept the application for SOS. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Bishnoi. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the applicant was not named in the Parcha Bayan of Brajlal (Ex.P/43). He also does not dispute the fact that there are significant discrepancies regarding the role assigned to the accused in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses. 4. In this background, we are satisfied that the appellant has, available to him, strong grounds so as to challenge his conviction as recorded by the trial court. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 5. As a consequence 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 sentence awarded to the accused applicant. 6. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 5. As a consequence 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 sentence awarded to the accused applicant. 6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 14.12.2018 in Sessions Case No. 10/2012 against the accused-applicant - Jangir Khan S/o Nabbu Khan 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 the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 15.05.2019 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. 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 related 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 be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.