Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1454 (RAJ)

Praveen v. State, Through PP

2019-05-10

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant applications for suspension of sentences. 2. The contention of learned counsel Shri Vineet Jain and Shri Navneet Poonia in support of the prayer for suspension of sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants is that two eye-witnesses namely Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They did not level any kind of allegation against the applicants-appellants. They further urge that the theory of extra-judicial confession deposed by PW-1 Khemraj is not specifically attributed to the either of the applicants. As per them, the highest allegation of the prosecution, even if accepted indicates that the accused Bharat was armed with a knife and it was he who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased Shankar. They urged that the applicants-appellants were on bail during trial and thus, they deserve same indulgence during pendency of the instant appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that even in the investigational statement of the eye-witnesses Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) (who turned hostile) allegation of causing knife blows to the deceased was attributed to the co-accused Bharat. 4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. As two eye-witnesses turned hostile, the only evidence remains against the applicants is in the form of the statement of PW-1 Khem Raj who alleged that six persons including the applicants came to his house and made an extra-judicial confession of having murdered Shankarlal. However, PW-1 Khem Raj has not stated as to who of the six specifically spoke he words of having murdered Shankarlal. These aspects can be better elaborated at the time of final hearing of the appeal but for the present, we are of the view that the applicants have strong grounds for assailing the judgment of conviction. They were on bail during course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. In this background, we are inclined to accept the instant applications for suspension of sentences. 5. They were on bail during course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. In this background, we are inclined to accept the instant applications for suspension of sentences. 5. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Udaipur, vide judgment dated 06.03.2019 in Sessions Case No. 15/2014 (752/2014) against the appellants-applicants (1) Praveen S/o Shri Logar Lal Dangi & (2) Jagdish S/o Sh. Udailal Dangi shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute 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 their appearance in this court on 10.06.2019 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. 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.