Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 151 (RAJ)

Dharampal v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-01-11

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. The appellant applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Section 498A and 304B IPC vide judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 24/2013 (CIS No. 77/2014). 4. Learned counsel Shri Shah, at the outset, does not press the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the accused appellant Dharam Pal being the husband of the deceased Smt. Darshana. However, regarding the co-applicant Subhash, his contention is that Subhash was living separately from Dharam Pal since long and that there was no occasion for Subhash and his wife Smt. Santosh to have harassed and humiliated the deceased on account of demand of dowry. He further urged that appellant applicant Subhash is in custody for the last more than five years and hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. He thus craves acceptance of application for suspension of sentences to the extent of the applicant appellant Subhash and urges that he deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. He submits that deceased Smt. Darshana was married to Dharam Pal just about two and half years before her unnatural death in the matrimonial home. Right from the date of her marriage with Dharam Pal, she was being harassed and humiliated on account of demand of dowry by Dharam Pal (husband), Subhash (Jeth), Smt. Santosh (Jethani) and Munshi Ram (father-in-law). They were demanding a motorcycle and rupees one lac cash by way of dowry. He thus urges that as there are common and grave allegations of the prosecution witnesses against all the accused, the applicant Subhash too does not deserve indulgence of bail. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. He thus urges that as there are common and grave allegations of the prosecution witnesses against all the accused, the applicant Subhash too does not deserve indulgence of bail. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. There is ample material available on the record so as to satisfy the Court that the applicant appellant Subhash was living separately with his wife Smt. Santosh and that Dharam Pal, the husband, had taken up a separate residence. The prosecution case regard the accused persons having murdered Smt. Darshana and her child has been discarded by the trial court and all the accused were acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. Thus, the applicant Subhash has strong case so as to assail his conviction for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and his case is definitely distinguishable from that of the accused Dharam Pal. Smt. Santosh wife of the applicant Subhash has been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2017. 8. In this background and having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences to the extent of appellant applicant No. 2 Subhash. So far as the appellant applicant No. 1 Dharam Pal is concerned, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed as not pressed. 9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 17.11.2016 in Sessions Case No. 24/2013 (CIS No. 77/2014) against the appellant-applicant No. 2 Subhash S/o Shri Munshi Ram, 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 11.02.2019 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. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 11.02.2019 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. 10. 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.