Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 360 (RAJ)

Kishore Singh v. State

2020-02-12

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel Shri Devendra Mahalana does not press the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant No. 2 Prakash Singh. However, he submits that the applicants-appellants Kishore Singh and Laxman Singh have manifestly been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution witnesses suppressed material facts while deposing on oath. He further submits that the Medical Officer Dr. Sangarsh Jain (PW. 11) did not even prove the postmortem report of the deceased in a lawful manner and details of the injuries were not stated by him while deposing on oath. He thus, urges that the applicants -appellants Kishore Singh and Laxman Singh deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by appellants' counsel. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the highest allegation of the material prosecution eye-witnesses namely Manju (PW. 3), Bheem Singh (PW. 4) and Shanta Devi (PW. 5) regarding the solitary head injury inflicted to the deceased Ratan Singh is attributed to the accused Prakash Singh. 5. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by learned counsel representing the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. 6. Before proceeding to decide the instant application for suspension of sentences, we are compelled to note that the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the Presiding Officer of the trial court acted with absolute slackness while getting the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Sangarsh Jain (PW. 11) recorded. For the sake of ready reference, we are reproducing the statement of Medical Officer Dr. Sangarsh Jain (PW. Sangarsh Jain (PW. 11) recorded. For the sake of ready reference, we are reproducing the statement of Medical Officer Dr. Sangarsh Jain (PW. 11) verbatim:- ^^'kiFk fnykbZ x;h %& fnukad 10-09-2015 dks eSa fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ds in ij vkj ds gkWLihVy jktleUn esa fu;qDr FkkA ml fnukad dks iqfyl Fkkuk nsox<+ ds }kjk eq>s jruflag dk iksLVekVZe djus ckcr ,d rgjj nh tks rgjhj izn'kZ ih 27 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjh izkfIr jlhn gS o gLrk{kj gSA mDr rgjhj ds vk/kkj ij esjs }kjk e`rd jruflag dh iksLVekZVEk fjiksVZ rS;kj dh tks izns'k ih 28 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh gS] lh ls Mh esjh jk; gSA esjh jk; ds vuqlkj e`rd dh e`R;q gsM bUtjh ¼flj esa pksV½ ds dkj.k gksuk ik;k x;kA ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk vfHk;qDrx.k %& ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih 28 esa of.kZr jruflag dh e`R;q ;fn dksbZ O;fDr mapkbZ ls Bksl /kjkry ij flj ds cy ls fxjs rks gksuk lEHko gSA e`rd jruflag ds flj ij rh{.k ¼'kkiZ½ gfFk;kj dh dksbZ pksV ugh FkhA iqu% ijh{k.k %& fuy^^ 7. On a perusal of the statement, it is clear that the medical officer did not describe the dimension of the head injury found on the head of the deceased Ratan Singh in his examination-in-chief. He did not elaborate upon the nature of the injury as to whether it was caused by a sharp weapon or by a blunt weapon. No opinion was expressed whether the head injury caused to the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or not. The trial court too acted with absolute indifference while the evidence of this witness was recorded. As per Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it was the bounden duty of Presiding Officer to have ensured that the evidence of the Medical Officer is recorded as per law. However, a bare perusal of the statement is indicative of the laconic approach of the Presiding Officer. 8. Be that as it may. It is apparent from the evidence of the eye-witnesses referred to supra that the fatal head injury caused to deceased Ratan Singh is attributed to accused Prakash. Thus, the application for suspension filed on behalf of applicant-appellant No. 2 Prakash Singh S/o. Shri Manna Singh is dismissed as not pressed. 8. Be that as it may. It is apparent from the evidence of the eye-witnesses referred to supra that the fatal head injury caused to deceased Ratan Singh is attributed to accused Prakash. Thus, the application for suspension filed on behalf of applicant-appellant No. 2 Prakash Singh S/o. Shri Manna Singh is dismissed as not pressed. However, the application filed on behalf of the other two applicants-appellants Kishore Singh and Laxman Singh deserve acceptance. 9. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of applicants (1) Kishore Singh S/o. Shri Manna Singh and (2) Laxman Singh S/o. Shri Roop Singh under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 19.11.2019 in Sessions Case No. 54/2015 (CIS No. 111/15) against the appellants-applicants (1) Kishore Singh S/o. Shri Manna Singh and (2) Laxman Singh S/o. Shri Roop Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 16.03.2020 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. 10. 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. 11. Copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge, Rajasamand for appraisal. Copy of this order shall also be forwarded to Director, Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, Jodhpur.