Dismissed

Radheshyam S/O Sube B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2018SOSA/895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by Radheshyam seeking suspension of sentence, the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, after hearing rival submissions regarding witness credibility and absence of identification marks, found no case for suspension and dismissed the application. The court noted an observation by a Coordinate Bench against the main allegation.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence was dismissed.

Radheshyam S/O Sube B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc. (Suspension of Sentence) Application

¶3

No.895/2018.

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 60/2018

¶6

Radheshyam S/o Sube, B/c Gurjar, R/o Sone Ka Gurja, Police Station Badi, District Dholpur. Accused Appellant Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Dholpur

¶7

Accused/Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP, for the State.

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

12/09/2018

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that applications for suspension of sentence of Baijo @ Baijnath and Banti S/o Sube has been granted by the Court. The case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused. In view of the above, the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.

¶16

It is also stated that the name of the applicant was not given by the complainant at the first instance despite his alleged availability at the place of occurrence at around 2.30 AM in the night. PW-1 in his Court statement admitted that he initially stated to the police that he will give name of the accused later on. This itself shows that applicant has been implicated with afterthought because of previous rivalry.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLAD-60/2018]

¶19

The reference of the statement of Armour has also been given. It is to show that the arm recovered from the applicant was examined without cartridge as it was not sent to verify as to find out whether it was fired from the arm. The Armour has admitted that no identification mark on the arm was existing. In view of the above also, the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that PW-1-Chiroji has supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant did not state that the name of the accused would be disclosed after sometime, rather name was given at the first instance. The accused did not otherwise crossexamine the witness on the aforesaid.

¶21

It is further submitted that PW-18 has also supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the above and as the eye witness has named the applicant for opening fire to cause injury to the deceased, a case of suspension of sentence is not made out. It is more so when, the Coordinate Bench of this court has also observed and found that main allegation exist against the applicant Radheyshyam while accepting their application for suspension of sentence. The prayer is according to dismiss the application for suspension of sentence.

¶22

We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that a case is not made out for suspension of sentence. Any comment on the arguments of either of the parties at this stage may affect final hearing of the appeal. After taking into consideration the

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLAD-60/2018]

¶26

material available on the record, we do not find a case for suspension of sentence.

¶27

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶28

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J

¶29

(M.N.BHANDARI),J

¶30

Manish/5

Radheshyam S/O Sube B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam S/O Sube B/C Gurjar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Pal @ Falya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mormal S/O Shri Hariya Mev B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Home

Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mukesh S/O Rameshwar B/C Koli Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan Ram S/O Bhura Ram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shankar Lal S/O Shri Narayan B/C Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan