Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 461 (RAJ)

Sumer v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-02-07

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 applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. The appellants applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 302/149 IPC vide judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (153/2011) (NCV No. 919/2014). 4. Learned counsel Shri Jain representing the applicants appellants Sumer, Pannaram and Tarachand in this application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389, urges that these applicants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. He points out from the material prosecution eye witnesses Virendra (PW-4), Rawalram (PW-5) and Malaram (PW-6) that the specific allegation of causing fatal blunt weapon injuries to the deceased Kishan is attributed to the co-accused Madhuram and Jetharam. He urges that two co- accused Madanlal and Birmaram who too were named by these witnesses as being the members of the unlawful assembly, have been enlarged on bail by this Court, of course with the finding that they were not named in the FIR. Shri Jain urges that since the pertinent allegation of the witnesses regarding the fatal injuries caused to the deceased is against the aforesaid two accused and as the deceased suffered only 3 injuries, as per him, it is a clear case of over implication and hence, the applicants appellants deserve suspension of sentences awarded to them by the trial court, during pendency of the appeal. 5. Shri JPS Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Dhaka, Advocate representing the complainant, have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the pertinent allegation of the prosecution eye-witnesses regarding infliction of fatal blows to the deceased is against the co-accused Madhuram and Jetharam. The total number of injuries suffered by the deceased on his body were three and thus, the number of accused exceeds the total number of injuries. 6. The total number of injuries suffered by the deceased on his body were three and thus, the number of accused exceeds the total number of injuries. 6. In this background, and having regard to the fact that the accused appellants were on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to them, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences. 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, vide judgment dated 07.08.2018 in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (153/2011) (NCV No. 919/2014) against the appellants-applicants (1) Sumer, (2) Pannaram and (3) Tarachand, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them 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 11.03.2019 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.