Neeraj S/O Shri Baburam B/C Jatav v. State of Rajasthan
Case brief
What is this about?
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
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. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.946/2018
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 272/2018
Neeraj S/o Shri Baburam B/c Jatav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Akbarpur, Abaiyya At Present P.s. Gajner, Distt. Kanpur, U.p. At Present Tila No. 7A, Kacchi Basti, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (At Present Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Keshav Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms.Sonia Shandilya, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
07/09/2018
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that all the material witnesses have turned hostile thus they have not supported the Prosecution case. Even the weapon, said to be used for causing offence, was not sent for FSL. The report does not exists to confirm the blood group on blood stained knife and scissors to be of the deceased. In view of the above and as no one has seen the occurrence, conviction of the accused-appellant is
(2 of 3)
[CRLAD-272/2018]
based on surmises and conjectures. In fact, the occurrence took place at the instance of an unknown person, who was demanding money from accused’s wife and otherwise, harassing her, as informed by the deceased. He came on the spot and caused injury to deceased and thereupon, to accused-appellant. In view of the above, a case for offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC is not made out.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that defence taken by accused-appellant is not probable. If unknown or known person came and caused offence where accused-appellant’s wife died, there was no reason not to disclose this story to the Police at the first instance. In fact, the accused-appellant should have lodged an FIR for the aforesaid occurrence and it could not have been denied by the Police only for the reason that deceased’s sister has lodged an FIR about offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC by accused-appellant. Merely for the reason that few witnesses turned hostile, the case of Prosecution cannot be discarded. It is moreso when connecting evidence exists and otherwise, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The accused-appellant was along with his wife and defence taken by him is not probable. In view of the above, accused-appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence. It cannot be merely for the reason that blood stained scissors and knife lying on the spot were not sent for FSL. In fact, accused-appellant had motive to kill his wife and thereupon, tried to commit suicide. In view of the above, sentence of accusedappellant may not be suspended.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that a case is not made out for suspension of sentence. Any
(3 of 3)
[CRLAD-272/2018]
comment on the arguments of either of the parties may affect final hearing of the appeal but taking into consideration the material available on record, we do not find a case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J
(M.N.BHANDARI),J
Preeti/22
Neeraj
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