Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 474 (RAJ)

Rekha Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-09

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2023
ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant second application for suspension of sentences has been preferred on behalf of the appellant applicant who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.08/2018 (CIS No.08/2018): Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 449 IPC 10 Years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 Months' S.I. Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 6 Months' S.I. Section 397 IPC 7 Years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 Months' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences wherein, it is indicated that the appellant had served total sentence of 6 years and 8 months by 21.07.2022. Thus, by now, she has undergone 7 years imprisonment including remissions. 3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the alleged murder of Smt. Raju Devi by strangulation and looting of her ornaments. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Soni representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the case of prosecution is based on very weak chain of circumstantial. Evidence of witnesses of last seen circumstance namely Rajesh (PW-2) and Omprakash (PW-3) is not reliable and the trial court was absolutely unjustified in admitting their evidence so as to find the circumstance of 'last seen' proved. She urged that the incident took place on 16.02.2018. Rajesh (PW-2), who claimed to be a witness of last seen, admitted in his cross-examination that he was present at the spot when the police came after the incident was reported but he did not tell the police officers regarding having seen the accused present with the deceased. Statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded as late as on 21.02.2018. Regarding the statement of Omprakash (PW-3), her contention was that in cross-examination, the witness admitted that he could not say whether Rekha had gone back to her house. She further urged that the recoveries effected at the instance of the appellant are totally fabricated. On these grounds, she implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and enlarge the appellant on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. She further urged that the recoveries effected at the instance of the appellant are totally fabricated. On these grounds, she implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and enlarge the appellant on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the appellant has rightly been held guilty for the murder of Raju Devi because significant circumstance was proved by the prosecution to bring home the charges. 6. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. 7. Ex-facie, we find that the evidence of the witnesses of circumstance of last seen together does suffer from apparent infirmities. Whether or not, their statements could be relied upon so as to uphold connection of the appellant would have to be considered when the appeal is being finally decided. However, the fact remains that if the evidence of last seen together is excluded, the only circumstance which remains on record to prove the charges would be of recoveries. The appellant is a woman and has been in custody for nearly last 7 years. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. 8. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances available on record and, considering the prolonged custody of the appellant and the bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant second 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, Salumbar, District Udaipur, vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 in Sessions Case No.08/2018 (CIS No.08/2018) against the appellant-applicant Smt. Rekha Devi, 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 his appearance in this court on 13.03.2023 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 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. 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.