Allowed

Munna Ali v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2018SOSA/1170/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court allowed an application for suspension of sentence. The court found the conviction based mainly on suspicion and inconclusive forensic evidence regarding the recovered clothes. Consequently, the sentence was suspended during the appeal pending a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Suspended sentence; released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and one surety to appear before the court.

Munna Ali Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) APPLICATION No.1170/2017.

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1819/2017

¶5

Munna Ali S/o Shri Abdul Hakim B/c Musalman, R/o Hada Market, Sultanpur, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural, Raj. At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, P. P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶11

Order

¶12

06/09/2018

¶13

Heard on the application for suspension of sentence.

¶14

Learned counsel states that applicant was on bail during trial. He was named in the case based on suspicion thus even conviction is based on presumption. There is no connecting evidence despite a case of circumstantial evidence other than recovery of blood stained ‘pajama’ and a ‘lathi’ but in the FSL report, it is not shown to be having blood group of the deceased, rather, it is inconclusive for that. In fact, blood group of the deceased was not taken to corroborate it. No other evidence exists against the applicant other than presumption. Thus, the sentence of the applicant may be suspended.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLA-1819/2017]

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that though as per the witnesses produced by the prosecution the applicant has been implicated based on suspicion but recovery of blood stained ‘pajama’ and ‘lathi’ at his instance is sufficient to connect him with the crime and, for that, no other evidence is required.

¶18

We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The perusal of the evidence on record shows that name of the applicant was given based on suspicion. The only connecting evidence is recovery of ‘pajama’ and ‘lathi’ but it has not matched with the blood group of the deceased. Even if the aforesaid is considered, the size of the injury cannot be caused by ‘lathi’.

¶20

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept the application for suspension of sentence of the applicant. The applicant was otherwise on bail during trial.

¶21

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that sentence awarded to accusedapplicant namely; Munna Ali S/o Shri Abdul Hakim in Sessions Case No.46/2014 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. He be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupess Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 08.10.2018 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLA-1819/2017]

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to prepare the paper book and file it with the Registry.

¶25

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J

¶26

(M.N.BHANDARI),J

¶27

A.Arora/-16.

Munna Ali v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Ali v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Anil Kumar Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Raju @ Raju Sabjiwala Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Mukut Bihari and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Abdul Hafij S/O Shri Abdul Raheman B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp