In an application for suspension of sentence, the High Court examined the dying declaration and witness testimony. Finding the evidence supported the prosecution case against the appellant, the court dismissed the application.
Application for suspension of sentence was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.921/2018
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.267/2018
Rakesh Sahu S/o Shri Arjun Sahu B/c Teli, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sattar, Ps Maner, District Patna, Bihar. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan & Mr. Pankaj Sisodia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
19/09/2018
Learned counsel submits that accused was not present at the time of occurrence. It has been stated by all the witnesses produced by the prosecution thus applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, the deceased committed suicide due to relation of the applicant with another lady. The witnesses thus admitted that deceased may have poured kerosene on her. In view of the above, sentence may be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. In “Parcha Bayan” (Exhibit-P18) and even in the “dying declaration” (Exhibit-P1), the deceased has named the accused for causing occurrence. It is specifically stated that he
(2 of 2)
[SOSAPPL-921/2018]
poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. He then ran away from the spot. The dying declaration cannot be discarded. It is moreso when it is supported by other witnesses. A reference of statement of PW2-Lada Devi has been given. She has not only shown presence of accused on the spot prior to occurrence but has supported the prosecution case. A reference of other statements has also been given to show that they heard shouting of deceased naming the accused for causing occurrence and immediately, thereupon, he ran away from the spot. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the application for suspension of sentence.
We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The perusal of “Parcha Bayan” (Exhibit-P18) and even in the “dying declaration” (Exhibit-P1) shows that name of the applicant has been given by the deceased for causing occurrence. Learned counsel for applicant has not raised argument against recording of the dying declaration. It is also a fact that other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. PW2-Lada Devi has shown presence of the applicant and other witnesses heard shouting of the deceased naming the applicant for causing occurrence. In view of the above and looking to other evidence available on record, we prima facie do not find a case for suspension of sentence. The applicant was not on bail during trial.
In view of the above, application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. Learned counsel for applicant can, however, file paper book.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J
(M.N.BHANDARI),J
FRBOHRA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence should be suspended pending the pendency of the criminal appeal.
Rakesh Sahu
State Of Rajasthan
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Dinesh Chandra Somani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
