Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2332 (RAJ)

Birbal @ Balla v. State of Rajasthan

2021-12-15

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

body2021
ORDER 1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 2. The appellants have filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence. 3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Act) Cases, Bharatpur in Session Case No. 106/2016, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 307/149, 332 and 333 of IPC and sentenced to maximum term of four years. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent eye witness of the incident. The appellants have been sentenced to maximum term of four years of imprisonment for offences under Sections 307/149 and 333 of IPC. During trial, the appellants were on bail. Injuries of injured PW-2-Surendra Singh @ Lala are simple in nature while one injury of injured Ramcharan Sharma-PW-16 has been levelled as dangerous to life but PW-8-Dr. M.L. Kanwat has stated in his cross-examination that he did not treat the injured-Ramcharan. Operation was also not done by him. He has also admitted that opinion of operating Doctor was not recorded. Doctor, who operated the injured-Ramcharan was also not examined during the prosecution evidence. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that the injury caused to Ramcharan was dangerous to life. There are material infirmities and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Hearing of the appeal may take long time. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record carefully. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, evidence available on record and overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, evidence available on record and overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-appellants (1) Birbal @ Balla Son Of Shri Samdriya (2) Kajod Son Of Shri Gopal (3) Smt. Santra Devi Wife Of Shri Kajodmal (4) Smt. Barfi Devi Wife Of Kastur Chand (5) Smt. Sunita Wife Of Shri Mukesh and (6) Kistura Urf Kastur Chand Son Of Shri Birbal Urf Bhalla shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of the appellants furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance in this Court on 17th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.