Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 770 (RAJ)

Chaina Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-07

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence. Perused the material available on record. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor is not desirous of filing reply to the application seeking suspension of sentences despite opportunity and proposes to argue the case orally. 3. The contention of Mr. O.P. Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the applicant-appellant Chaina Ram in support of the prayer for suspension of sentences awarded to the applicant was that the prosecution failed to prove even a solitary circumstance so as to link the accused with the murder of Bora Ram. The evidence of the witness of the last seen is not reliable and the recoveries are manipulated. The incident is of 27.09.2012. The accused was not named in the FIR and was a free bird till he was arrested as late as on 11.10.2012 and thus, it is impossible to believe that he would preserve the articles and retain the same so that they can be recovered later on and used as incriminating evidence against him. He urged that since the appellant has been in custody for last nearly six years and he deserves indulgence of bail while suspending his sentences during pendency of the instant appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and urged that the prosecution has been able to prove the circumstances of last seen as well as recoveries against the accused-appellant and hence he is not entitled to suspension of sentence. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and gone through the record of the case. Manifestly, the evidence of the deceased and accused having been lastly seen in each others company is flimsy. The accused was arrested on 11.10.2012 i.e. after nearly 15 days of the occurrence and thus, it is doubtful that he would preserve and retain the incriminating articles for this long period despite ample opportunity of destroying the same. However, we may clarify that the observations made hereinabove are being made only for deciding the instant application for suspension of sentences and would have no bearing on the final decision of the appeal. 6. However, we may clarify that the observations made hereinabove are being made only for deciding the instant application for suspension of sentences and would have no bearing on the final decision of the appeal. 6. In view of the discussion made above and upon consideration of the arguments advanced and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant. 7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali vide judgment dated 23.05.2017 in Sessions Case No. 287/2012 against the appellant-applicant Chaina Ram S/o Shri Parasmal 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. 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 09/4/2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.