Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1601 (RAJ)

Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-05-22

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. despite opportunity being provided and he proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Shri Menaria, learned Counsel representing the applicants-appellants urged that the deceased Kalu Bhai @ Noor Mohammed trespassed into the house of the applicants-appellants and tried to misbehave with Chanda @ Chandi (daughter of applicant-appellant No. 2 Prithvi Singh). At that point of time, the girl raised a hue and cry whereupon an altercation took place between the appellants herein and the deceased, in order to save the girl from his clutches. He further urged that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased came to the house of the applicants in a maruti car. He was carrying a gun like toy with him at that time. He attempted to threaten the inmates of the house on which the accused seem to have raised arms in an attempt to save themselves. He further pointed out that the accused-appellants voluntarily carried the body of the deceased to the Police Station which shows their bonafides. He contended that the accused-appellants, who were on bail, during trial deserve the very same indulgence during the pendency of the instant appeal as well. F4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused appellants. He urged that the gun which was being carried by the deceased was a toy gun. The deceased Kalu Bhai had been called by co-accused Chanda @ Chandi to come to the house and while he was there on her invitation, the accused appellants acted without any provocation and brutally murdered Kalu, the deceased. 5. However, on a pertinent query put to him, the learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the fact no call details were procured by the prosecution so as to corroborate the prosecution allegation that the co-accused Chanda invited the deceased Kalu to the house of the accused. He also could not dispute the fact that the prosecution did not lead any evidence whatsoever to show that co-accused Chanda was in any kind of relationship with the deceased Kalu Bhai. He also could not dispute the fact that the prosecution did not lead any evidence whatsoever to show that co-accused Chanda was in any kind of relationship with the deceased Kalu Bhai. Admittedly, the incident took place inside the house of the accused appellants and there is no evidence whatsoever to show as to who of the two accused inflicted the fatal injury i.e., the chopping off of the hand to the deceased Kalu. However, it is made clear that these observations are being made only for the purposes of dealing with the application for suspension of sentences and will not be considered prejudicial to the prosecution case when the appeal is finally heard. 6. In this background, we are inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, vide judgment dated 16.04.2019 in Sessions Case No. 09/2013 (CIS No. 38/2014) against the appellants-applicants (1) Inder Singh S/o Shri Prithvi Singh (2) Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Sav Singh 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 24.06.2019 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 applicants 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, 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-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. 7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants 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 applicants does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.