Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 203 (RAJ)

Sanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-02

ARUN BHANSALI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2024
ORDER : The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 02.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in Session Case No.7/2020 (RJBW0F0003352020): Offence Sentence Fine 341 IPC One month's simple imprisonment Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo five days' additional simple imprisonment. 323/34 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment Rs.5000/- and in default of which to further undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment. 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/-. 2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the applicants by the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the present was only a case of a road accident and only on account of previous family animosity between them, the applicants have been implicated. Submissions have been made that a bare look at the statement of eyewitness PW.2 Manoj, a 12 years' old boy, reveals that he was not telling the truth, inasmuch as his case was that he alongwith his grandfather were carrying two wheat bags and on account of attack by the applicants alongwith Ghishu Lal, they fell down from the motorcycle and one of wheat bag fell on him and he remained under it till such time that his father arrived at the place of accident and removed the bag; whereas in the two statements recorded by him with the police Exhibits D/3 and D/4, he had clearly indicated that he alongwith his grandfather ran from the place once they were attacked. 4. Further submissions were made that the allegation against co-accused, Ghishu Lal is that of using axe and hitting the deceased on his head. The doctor, who had conducted the postmortem viz. PW.4 Dr. Nagendra Pal Singh, clearly opined that the nature of injuries suffer by the deceased could also happen if somebody falls from fast paced motorcycle. It was submitted that the cause of death in the postmortem report has been indicated as injuries on head and chest. The allegation of giving axe blow on the head is against Ghishu Lal. PW.4 Dr. Nagendra Pal Singh, clearly opined that the nature of injuries suffer by the deceased could also happen if somebody falls from fast paced motorcycle. It was submitted that the cause of death in the postmortem report has been indicated as injuries on head and chest. The allegation of giving axe blow on the head is against Ghishu Lal. The applicants are in custody for over three years now, the hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and, therefore, their substantive sentence may be suspended. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made and submitted that the evidence available on record clearly proves the implication of the applicants alongwith Ghishu Lal and, therefore, the application be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. PW.4- Dr. Nagendra Pal Singh, who conducted the postmortem and PW.16- Dr. Manoj Kumar Baser, who was posted as Medical Officer when the deceased was admitted to hospital on 06.05.2020, have both clearly opined that nature of injuries on the person of deceased could also happen if somebody slips from the motorcycle. Besides the above statements, the allegations of causing injury on the vital part i.e. on the head by axe is against Ghishu Lal, the co-accused. Further, though the statements of eyewitness PW.2- Manoj were recorded on 08.05.2020 (Ex.D/3) and again on 20.05.2020 (Ex./D/4) by the police, wherein he specifically indicated that he alongwith his grandfather ran away after they were stopped on the motorcycle; whereas in his statement as PW.2, he indicated that on being stopped by the accused, the wheat bag fell on him and he remained under the wheat bag till such time that his father came and removed the bag, which contradiction is apparent. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after scrutinizing the record of the case, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants- (1) Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Ghishu Lal and (2) Dharmichand S/o Ghishu Lal, during the pendency of the appeal. 9. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after scrutinizing the record of the case, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants- (1) Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Ghishu Lal and (2) Dharmichand S/o Ghishu Lal, during the pendency of the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Session Case No.7/2020 (RJBW0F0003352020) against the appellants-applicants- (1) Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Ghishu Lal and (2) Dharmichand S/o Ghishu Lal, vide judgment dated 02.09.2023 shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute(s) a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 04.03.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: 1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing 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 applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.