Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1577 (RAJ)

Savitr v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-16

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case CIS No.21/2017: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default Sentences Section 364 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.2,000/- 1 Month's additional Imprisonment Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month's additional Imprisonment Section 201 IPC 4 Years' S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days additional Imprisonment all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been filed on behalf of the applicant appellant seeking release on bail during pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences. 4. We have heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record. 5. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the applicant appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant has been convicted for the alleged murder of the child Master 'V' on 16.04.2017. The FIR came to be registered without casting suspicion on any person regarding the disappearance of the child. On 18.04.2017, dead body of the child was found buried under a heap of cow-dung. The appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of direct testimony viz. statement of Reshma (PW-1) who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The trial court recorded a finding that presence of eye-witnesses at the place of incident is otherwise also unbelievable. The second circumstance on the basis whereof, the appellant was convicted, was alleged theory of motive in relation whereto, Manju (PW-25) mother of the deceased, alleged that she and Savitri were on enmical terms because of an incident which took place 21/2 years ago wherein, a locket worn by the appellant was broken and the appellant was continuously threatening to take revenge. Shri Moti Singh urged that the alleged theory of motive is totally unbelievable because the incident from which this inference is sought to be drawn, was a trivial one and took place about 21/2 years ago and thus, the same has no nexus with the alleged murder. Shri Moti Singh urged that the alleged theory of motive is totally unbelievable because the incident from which this inference is sought to be drawn, was a trivial one and took place about 21/2 years ago and thus, the same has no nexus with the alleged murder. Criticizing the statements of the two witnesses who gave evidence of extra-judicial confession namely Omprakash (PW-2) and Kesharam (PW-3), learned counsel Shri Moti Singh urged that the dead body of the child was recovered on 18.04.2017 whereas, these two witnesses alleged that the extra-judicial confession was made by the accused appellant before them as late as on 17.05.2017. The gross delay of more than one month in the making of alleged extra-judicial confession, makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. On these grounds, Shri Moti Singh implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal. 6. Per contra, Shri M.a. Siddiqui, learned Ga-cum-aaG, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that the appellant was bearing a grudge against Smt. Manju, mother of the deceased child, because she had broken a locket worn by the appellant who got a chance to take revenge on 16.04.2017 because all family members of the child had gone out. accordingly, the appellant sent away her own children and thereafter, she killed Master 'V' and buried the dead body under the heap of cow-dung. The evidence of motive is also supported by the circumstance of extra-judicial confession. Hence, Shri Siddiqui implored the Court to dismiss the application for suspension of sentences. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 8. The appellant is a woman and is in custody in this case from 20.05.2017. The prosecution portrayed an eye-witness (PW-1) Reshma to prove its case as against the appellant but she did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The trial court also held that there was no possibility that there was any eye-witness to the incident. The theory of motive, which has been portrayed by the prosecution, pertains to an incident which took place about 21/2 years ago before the incident wherein, the appellant's locket was broken in a quarrel with Manju, mother of the deceased child. The trial court also held that there was no possibility that there was any eye-witness to the incident. The theory of motive, which has been portrayed by the prosecution, pertains to an incident which took place about 21/2 years ago before the incident wherein, the appellant's locket was broken in a quarrel with Manju, mother of the deceased child. However, this incident is too remote in point of time so as to have nexus with the alleged murder. The two eye-witnesses of the extra-judicial confession namely Omprakash (PW-2) and Kesharam (PW-3) claimed that the appellant made the extra-judicial confession before them on 17.05.2017 i.e. after more than a month of the alleged incident. Whether or not, evidence of the two eye-witnesses, referred to supra, would stand to scrutiny would be for this Court to consider when the appeal is being finally decided. However, for the present, we are of the opinion that the appellant applicant has available to her strong and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. 9. In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, we deem it just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant applicant, during pendency of the appeal. 10. 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 No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 18.09.2021 in Sessions Case CIS No.21/2017 against the appellant-applicant Savitri W/o Budhram, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she 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 her appearance in this court on 20.06.2022 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. 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. 11. 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.