Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 54 (RAJ)

Govind v. State, Through PP

2019-01-04

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to these applications for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. The appellants applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 307/149 and 302/149 vide judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Udaipur. 3. It is contended by learned defence counsel that the applicants herein have been falsely implicated in this case. The total numbers of charge-sheeted accused by the investigating officer after completion of investigation are ten. The specific allegation of the injured eye-witness Ramlal Rebari (PW-1) and Baluram Rebari (PW-2) in their statements was that the co accused Shambhu Lal, Gautam Lal and Udailal were armed with naked swords and the other accused including the applicants herein were having pipes and lathis in their hands. Both the witnesses categorically stated that all the accused rained indiscriminate blows upon them and the deceased Mangilal. Drawing the Courts attention to the statement of the Medical Officer Dr. Anees Ahmed (PW-15) and the medical reports of Ramlal (Ex.P/47), Baluram (Ex.P/68) and the postmortem report of Mangilal (Ex.P/46), learned counsel pointed out that not a single injury by a blunt weapon was received by either the two injured witnesses or the deceased in the incident. Hence as per them, manifestly it is a case where the applicants have been falsely implicated owing to prior enmity. They submitted that the applicants were on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail so granted to them by this Court. On these grounds, they implored the Court to accept the applications for suspension of sentences and direct release of the applicants on bail during pendency of the appeals. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that the injured witnesses categorically alleged in their testimony that the applicants were armed with blunt weapons that is to say pipes and lathis whereas, the accused Shambhu Lal, Gautam Lal and Udailal were armed with swords. He also could not disputed the fact that neither the two injured witnesses nor the deceased, received a single blunt weapon injury in the incident. He also could not disputed the fact that neither the two injured witnesses nor the deceased, received a single blunt weapon injury in the incident. We have verified this fact from the MLR of the two injured witnesses (Ex.P/47 and Ex.P/68) and the postmortem report of deceased Mangilal (Ex.P/46) and find that all the injuries were caused by sharp weapons. Manifestly thus, the contention of the defence counsel that it is a case of over implication of the accused appellants by the complainant party owing to inimical relations, is not without force. 5. Any comment on the merits of the case at this stage may prejudice the decision of the appeals. However, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances as emerging from record, we are inclined to accept these applications for suspension of sentences. 6. Accordingly, these applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Udaipur, vide judgment dated 23.07.2018 in Sessions Case No. 52/2014 against the appellant-applicants (1) Govind S/o Shri Bijal Rebari, (2) Arjun son of Dev Rebari, (3) Heeralal S/o Nathu @ Nattha and (4) Madan Lal S/o Sh. Hazari Rebari, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals 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 their appearance in this court on 04.02.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeals 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. 7. 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. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), 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-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.