Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 290 (RAJ)

Prem Singh v. State

2020-01-30

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the highest allegation of the material prosecution witnesses PW-1 Smt. Tara Kunwar, the first informant and PW-2 Devendra Singh is that the deceased Amar Singh had gone to the house of coaccused Bhanwar Singh for purchasing liquor and at that point of time, quarrel ensued between them. The appellant-applicant Prem Singh is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased and coaccused Bhanwar Singh inflicted two stab wounds on the body of the deceased, which proved fatal. He thus urges that so far as the appellant-applicant herein is concerned, he has been falsely implicated in the case for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. He further submits that the appellantapplicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He thus, urges that the appellant-applicant deserves to be indulgence of bail during the pendency of this appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant. However, he is also not in a position to dispute the fact that from the statements of the star prosecution witnesses PW-1 Smt. Tara Kunwar, the first informant and PW-2 Devendra Singh, the allegation of inflicting the two knife blows to the deceased is specifically attributed to the co-accused Bhanwar Singh. The incident admittedly took place in the house of co-accused Bhanwar Singh. The appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty thereof during pendency of the trial. 4. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 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. 5. 4. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 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. 5. 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 No.4, Udaipur vide judgment dated 01.02.2019 in Sessions Case No.59/2018 [1/2018] against the appellant-applicant Prem Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, 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.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 02.03.2020 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. 6. 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.