Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 792 (RAJ)

Chena Ram v. State, Through PP

2019-03-08

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences. 2. Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Choudhary urges that entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. He urged that the charge against the accused appellant was that he conspired with the accused Kalu Ram for the murder of Dhanna Ram. However, the trial Court discarded the evidence of motive, eye-witnesses account and thereafter proceeded to acquit the co-accused persons from the charges. The accused appellant too was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. However, acting solely on weak circumstances of recovery of axe and the matching foot moulds, the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor. He urges that the evidence regarding taking up of specimen foot mould is doubtful. He further urges that it is doubtful that injury of the nature noticed on the head of the deceased could have been caused by a Kassi. He further urges that the accused appellant was on bail during the course of bail. He thus, craves acceptance of the instant application for suspension of sentences. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused appellant. He urged that the evidence of recovery of blood stained weapon with matching blood group of the deceased and recovery of the foot moulds from the place of occurrence which matches with the foot print of the accused is sufficient to connect him with the crime of murder of deceased Dhanna Ram. However, learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the eyewitnesses account was discarded by the trial court as being unreliable. Furthermore, the trial court also held that none of the accused had any motive to commit murder of the deceased Dhanna Ram. 5. Whether or not the evidence of recoveries referred to supra would be sufficient to uphold the conviction of accused appellant would be for this Court to decide when the appeal is finally heard. Furthermore, the trial court also held that none of the accused had any motive to commit murder of the deceased Dhanna Ram. 5. Whether or not the evidence of recoveries referred to supra would be sufficient to uphold the conviction of accused appellant would be for this Court to decide when the appeal is finally heard. However, considering the fact that the trial court itself acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and thereafter proceeded to convict the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and as the two co-accused persons were acquitted by the same judgment which has attained finality qua them, we are inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences. 6. 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 learned Sessions Judge, Merta District Nagaur vide judgment dated 24.03.2018 in Sessions Case No. 16/2008 (CIS No. 78/2015) against the appellant- applicant Chena Ram S/o Shri Kalu 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 09.04.2019 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. 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. 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.