Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 105 (RAJ)

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-09

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
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 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 3. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.149/2017 (CIS No.181/2017) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Katoch, has vehemently and fervently urged that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime involving the murder of Smt. Durga Bai. She urges that if the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses PW-10 Smt. Arunima and PW-11 Sushri Laxmi is seen, it would become clear that there is nothing in their evidence which can be considered to be constituting the evidence of last seen. The appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of conjectural pieces of circumstantial evidence. She urges that even if the prosecution allegation regarding the recovery of the blood stained Kassi and clothes of the accused is accepted, then also, the appellant cannot be held guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC. As per Ms. Katoch, the circumstance of recovery of blood stained weapons and clothes can be used for corroboration of other relevant evidence but when there is no relevant evidence which can even remotely connect the appellant with the murder, mere blood stained recoveries would not give any inference regarding his involvement in the crime. She thus prays that the appellant deserves indulgence of bail, during pendency of the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Ms. Katoch. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that there is hardly any evidence on the face of the entire record which can constitute circumstance of last seen against the appellant. On going through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, referred to supra, we are of the view that these statements also do not give any strong evidence of motive against the accused appellant. On going through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, referred to supra, we are of the view that these statements also do not give any strong evidence of motive against the accused appellant. Whether or not the blood stained recoveries, referred to above, will prove sufficient for upholding the guilt of the accused, it would be for this Court to consider when the appeal is finally decided. 6. In this background, it is considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the 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 (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, vide judgment dated 30.08.2018 in Sessions Case No.149/2017 (CIS No.181/2017) against the appellant-applicant Mangilal S/o Shri Bheraji, 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 10.02.2020 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.