Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2706 (RAJ)

Indraj v. State of Rajasthan

2019-10-18

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, SANDEEP MEHTA

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 representing the applicant appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 3. The appellant (applicant herein) stands convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Sections 34, 447 and 307 IPC vide judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.20/2015. 4. Learned counsel Shri Kanti Lal Thakur, appearing for the applicant, urges that the prosecution case has been partly disbelieved by the trial Court. Five persons were named as assailants in the FIR as well as by the injured PW-1 Balveer in his sworn testimony. Three were charge-sheeted but only the appellant has been convicted. He further urges that none of the sharp weapon injury found on the head of the injured Balveer were found to be grievous in nature. Even from these three injuries, only one has been attributed to the accused appellant. The co-accused Rukma Devi who is alleged to have inflicted a grievous injury on the back of the injured, has been acquitted by the trial Court. He contends that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds, he implores the Court to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences and enlarge the applicant appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Per contra, Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri N.L. Joshi, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the none of the sharp weapon injuries noticed on the head of the injured were found to be grievous in nature upon the x-ray examination. It is also not in dispute that the Investigating Officer did not file charge-sheet against two of the three accused named in the FIR. 6. In this background, we are of the view that the applicant appellant has strong grounds so as to assail his conviction as recorded by the trial Court. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. 6. In this background, we are of the view that the applicant appellant has strong grounds so as to assail his conviction as recorded by the trial Court. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. Thus, it is considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the applicant appellant, during pendency of the appeal. 7. 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 the Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 31.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.20/2015 against the appellantapplicant Indraj s/o Shri Prakash, 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.80,000/- with two sureties of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 19.11.2019 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. 8. 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.