Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1621 (RAJ)

Hanumanaram @ Hadmanram v. State, Through PP

2019-05-23

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentences to the application despite opportunity being afforded. He proposed to argue the matter orally. 3. Shri Rajiv Bishnoi, learned counsel for the accused applicant vehemently urged that the applications for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the co-accused Dala Ram and Kana Ram have been accepted by this Court, thus the applicant too deserves indulgence of bail on parity. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Rajiv Bishnoi. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that while passing the order of Dala Ram, this Court did not advert to the circumstance of bloodstained recoveries and hence, the applicant does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of appeal. 6. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. 7. Suffice it to say that while considering the application for suspension of sentence No. 327/2019 filed on behalf of co-accused Dala Ram, this Court took note of the entire spectrum of circumstances available on record against the accused and observed as below:- "Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh representing the appellant-applicant vehemently and fervently submits that there is no evidence worth the name of the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. He urged that the case of the prosecution is based totally on circumstantial evidence and a conjectural theory has been put up that the accused killed Banshi Lal owing to a land dispute and hung him to a tree so as to give the incident shape of a suicide. He urged that ex facie the evidence of motive is falsified in view of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported this theory. He also referred to the statement of Dr. Puranmal Mohnot (P.W.16), who categorically stated that the deceased Shri Banshi Lal expired due to antemortem hanging and that the sharp weapon injury noticed on his head was not even remotely connected with the death. He further urged that the recoveries effected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are totally concocted. Puranmal Mohnot (P.W.16), who categorically stated that the deceased Shri Banshi Lal expired due to antemortem hanging and that the sharp weapon injury noticed on his head was not even remotely connected with the death. He further urged that the recoveries effected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are totally concocted. He further urged that a slip was received from the pocket of the deceased, which indicates that he was apprehensive that he might be done to death by numerous persons, namely, Dala Ram, Hadman Ram and Kona Ram etc. He urged that if at all it was a case of murder, manifestly, the accused would not have given a chance to the deceased to scribble this scribe and rather it is a clear case, wherein the deceased ended his own life by hanging from a tree. He urged that the appellant is in custody from last more than three years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time. On these grounds, he implored the court to accept this application for suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. A.R. Nikub, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants counsel. They urged that Banshi Lal had sold his land to Jog Singh, whereas the accused appellants were desirous of taking the said land. Owing to this enmity, the accused first inflicted a sharp weapon blow on the head of the deceased and then tied a noose to his neck while he was unconscious and hung him from a tree so as to give the incident shape of a suicide. They, thus, urged that the applicant do not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. Ex facie, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The motive which has been portrayed in the prosecution case for the murder is that Banshi Lal had sold the land to Jog Singh and the accused were annoyed by this transaction. Jog Singh, when examined as P.W.5 did not support this story and was declared hostile. The dead body of Shri Banshi Lal was recovered while hanging from a tree. Jog Singh, when examined as P.W.5 did not support this story and was declared hostile. The dead body of Shri Banshi Lal was recovered while hanging from a tree. Some blood was oozing out from an injury which looked to be incised wound. The medical officer Dr. Puran Mal Mohnot (P.W.16), upon being examined at the trial gave affirmative evidence that the sharpish injury noticed on the occipital region of the deceased was superficial in nature and that blood was coagulant on the injury. Hence, the injury was caused prior to the death of Shri Banshi Lal. He gave a positive finding that the cause of death of Shri Banshi Lal was antemortem hanging. The photographs taken by the Investigating Officer indicate that the deceased is hanging with noose of rope tied to a tree. Thus, manifestly, the case of the prosecution that the deceased was initially assaulted to unconscious state and then he was hung up from the tree is belied from these circumstances. Any conclusions by this court on this aspect may prejudice the final disposal of the appeal, but in any event, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances as available on record and the significant custodial period suffered by accused appellant and faint chances of early hearing of the appeal, we are inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentence." 8. As the similarly situated co-accused has been extended indulgence of suspension of sentences, we find no reason to deny the same benefit to the present applicant. 9. 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 Sessions Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 14.09.2018 in Sessions Case No. 31/2016 against the appellant-applicant Hanumanaram @ Hadmanram S/o Bheekha Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes 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 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. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his 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 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 purposes 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.