Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1973 (RAJ)

Ramesh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-07-07

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 2. The appellant applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 12/2014: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 1 Year's R.I. Section 148 IPC 2 Years' R.I. Rs. 500/- 1 Month's R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The applicant-appellant has preferred this third application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for being released on bail during pendency of the appeal. 4. After rejection of the earlier applications for suspension of sentences preferred on behalf of the appellant, he preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8904/2019 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was decided vide order dated 10.12.2021, giving liberty to the appellant to renew the application for bail before the High Court after three months. In pursuance to the said direction, the instant application for suspension of sentences has been moved. 5. Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel representing the appellant, urged that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence in the form of oral dying declaration as deposed by the witnesses Bhera Ram (P.W. 6) and Bharat Kumar (P.W. 16). Drawing the attention of this Court to the statements of these two witnesses, Shri Bora pointed out that neither of them pertinently stated that the deceased told them that the appellant herein was one of the assailants. He urged that as per the witnesses, the deceased only stated that Laxmanram and his sons were the assailants. 6. Laxmanram himself was not arraigned as an accused in this case. The appellant is one from the four sons of Laxmanram and thus, he cannot be singled out on the basis of such vague evidence of oral dying declaration. He thus urges that the appellant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. He is in custody for the last nearly 8 years. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds, Shri Bora implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds, Shri Bora implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that the most material evidence relied upon by the prosecution as against the appellant is in form of the oral dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased Hanumanram before the witnesses (P.W. 6) Bhera Ram and (P.W. 16) Bharat Kumar. Neither of these two witnesses pertinently stated that Hanumanram named the appellant herein as being the assailant. A general allegation was made that Hanuman Ram told that Laxmanram and his sons were the assailants. Only two of the four sons of Laxmanram were arraigned as accused in the case and Laxmanram himself was also not chargesheeted. 8. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant Ramesh has available to him strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 9. Accordingly, the third application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali vide judgment dated 03.12.2016 in Sessions Case No. 12/2014 against the appellant-applicant Ramesh, 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 08.08.2022 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. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 10. 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. 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.