Partly allowed

Vinay Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2019SOSA/220/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an application for suspension of sentence against a criminal appellant. While rejecting the plea, the court noted the trial court's irregular delay in examining a witness and allowing her to recant after nearly two years without judicial inquiry, highlighting it as a dereliction of duties requiring Chief Justice's notice. This seems to be a suspension application

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentences rejected; Trial court's order directing witness re-examination after 2 years sent to Chief Justice for necessary action.

Vinay Kumar Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Suspension of Sentence(Appeal) No. 220/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.57/2019

¶5

Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, by caste Jat, R/o Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana, now Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vinod Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Bhati, PP Mr.I.R. Choudhary for complainant.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

Date of Pronouncement :- 11/04/2019

¶14

(Per Hon’ble Mehta,J.)

¶15

The matter comes up for orders on an application for suspension of sentences filed by applicant-appellant Vinay Kumar.

¶16

Shri Vinod Sharma, learned Counsel representing the applicant-appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and is based on circumstantial evidence which is flimsy and inconsequential. The prosecution has set up a theory that the accused appellant was indulged in extramarital affairs with the co-accused Sunita and

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

[SOSA-220/2019]

¶19

that he conspired with her to eliminate her husband Satvir (the deceased) so that they could continue their illicit relationship in an unhindered manner. He urged that the evidence given to this effect by Anju (PW.1) being the daughter of the co-accused Sunita and the deceased Satvir is unbelievable and unreliable. As a matter of fact, the witness Anju did not even know the appellant from before and she was tutored and was made to give false evidence against the appellant. The allegation made by PW.1 Anju in her statement regarding the extramarital affairs between the appellant and the co-accused Smt.Sunita is a sheer improvement.

¶20

He referred to the statement of Smt. Savitri (PW.2), the mother of co-accused Smt.Sunita and urged that though in her statement recorded on 14.03.2016, the witness stated about the extramarital affairs between the appellant and the co-accused Sunita but as per him, the witness was recalled by the trial court on 20.07.2018 and while making deposition after being recalled, the witness categorically denied having given the earlier statement and was declared hostile by Public Prosecutor.

¶21

Learned Counsel Shri Vinod Sharma thus, urged that in view of the categoric deposition made by Smt. Savitri (PW.2) on 20.07.2018, apparently the finding recorded in the impugned judgment that the accused appellant was having extramarital affairs with the co-accused Sunita and that he conspired with her to get Satvir murdered is totally unjustified. He thus, implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant.

¶22

(3 of 7)

¶23

[SOSA-220/2019]

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati and learned Counsel Shri I.R. Choudhary, representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Sharma and urged that the witnesses Anju (PW.1), Savitri (PW.2) (mother of Sunita), Baljit Singh (PW.3) and Parmeshwari (PW.6), mother-in-law of Sunita, all gave affirmative evidence to the effect that the appellant herein and the co-accused Sunita were indulged in extramarital affairs and that Satvir, husband of Sunita, was murdered as his presence was proving to be a hurdle in the unbridled continuance of the affairs between the two accused. They thus, craved dismissal of the instant application for suspension of sentences.

¶25

We have heard the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶26

We are least convinced by the contentions advanced by Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant that the prosecution failed to lead convincing and cogent evidence to establish the factum of the extramarital affairs between the appellant and the co-accused Smt. Sunita. The aspersions made by Shri Sharma regarding the so-called improvements and contradictions etc. in the statements of these witnesses would be appreciated when the appeal is being heard finally. However, for the present, it is clear that the minor daughter of co-accused Sunita and deceased Satvir namely Anju (PW.1), Parmeshwari (PW.6) and various other witnesses have given evidence establishing the fact that the co-accused Sunita and the appellant applicant Vinay Kumar were indulged in an extramarital affair and

¶27

(4 of 7) [SOSA-220/2019]

¶28

the deceased Satvir was murdered so as to be eliminate the hurdle in their relationship. In this background, we are not inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant Vinay Kumar.

¶29

Before parting, we would like to make a note on the working of the learned Presiding Officer i.e., learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh. As has been mentioned above, the witness PW.2 Savitri was examined during trial on 14.03.2016 and she made a categoric deposition in the concluded statement that the applicant-appellant Vinay Kumar was her relative and that he and her daughter, the co-accused Sunita were indulged in an extramarital affair with each other. The accused-applicant used to visit the house of deceased Satvir who objected to the same, warned him to refrain from his activity. Thereafter, the accused-applicant Vinay Kumar and Smt. Sunita beat Satvir up.

¶30

However, strangely and contrary to all settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Presiding Officer appears to have entertained an application filed by Smt. Savitri under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as late as on 25.06.2018 by effect whereof, her earlier deposition was sought to be nullified. The contents of the application are reproduced in vernacular as below:-

¶31

“Jheku~ th]

¶32

mijksDr vuokuh izdj.k esa lk{; vfHk;kstu esa eq> PW-2 Jherh lkfo=h ds c;ku fnukad 14-03-2016 dks U;k;ky; esa ys[kc) fd;s Fks mDr c;ku e`rd lrohj ds lxs HkkbZ cythrflag o mldh iRuh ds ncko o cgdkos esa vkdj eSaus U;k;ky; esa fn;s Fks mDr c;ku nsrs le; eSa iw.kZ :i ls ekufld ncko esa Fkh] cythr flag o mldh iRuh eq>s o esjh nksfgrh vUtw dks viuh dkj esa U;k;ky; esa ykdj vk;k o esjs o vUtw ds c;ku U;k;ky; esa xyr :i ls ncko nsdj djok fn;kA lrohj ds ejus ds ckn esjk o esjh nksfgrh vUtw dk [kkus ihus o jgus dk dksbZ Bksj fBdkuk ugha Fkk] ge nksuksa

¶33

(5 of 7)

¶34

[SOSA-220/2019]

¶35

cythrflag ds ?kj ij gh jg jgh Fkh bl dkj.k ge iw.kZr;k nksuksa ekufld ncko o cgdkos esa FkhA cythr o lrohj dk vkil esa lEifr dks ysdj >xM+k Fkk eSaus fou; o lquhrk ds voS/k laca/k ugha ns[ks rFkk uk gh fou; dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij lqfurk dks ?kj ij NksM+dj tkuk ugha ns[kkA mDr c;ku eSaus ncko o cgdkos esa vkdj U;k;ky; esa dj fn;k] ftldh eq>s vkt rd vkRe xykuh gks jgh gSA esjh vUrZvkRek dgrh gSA fd U;k;ky; esa eSa iqu% c;ku dj lgh c;ku dj ldwa rkfd U;k;ky; esa izksij o mfpr fu.kZ; esa lgk;d gks ldsA

¶36

vr% izkFkZuk i= e; “kiFk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd eq> izkFkhZuh dk c;ku U;k;ky; esa iqu% fy;k tkos rkfd mDr c;ku mfpr :i ls U;k; fu.kZ; esa lgk;d gks ldsA

¶37

fnukad % 25-06-2018

¶38

lkfo=h csok bZ”oj tkfr tkV fuoklh xzke [kjdM+k rglhy glh ftyk fglkj ¼gfj;k.kk½ Lo;a ”

¶39

The learned trial judge proceeded to accept the said application by order dated 04.07.2018 assigning the following reasons.

¶40

“04.07.2018

¶41

vij yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkrA vfHk;qDrk Jherh lquhrk U;kf;d vfHkj{kk ls mifLFkrA vfHk;qDr fou;dqekj ts@lh ls vuqifLFkrA mldk dsoy ts@lh- okjaV izkIr gqvk gSA

¶42

bl vkns”k }kjk xokg ih-MCyw-2 lkfo=h dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr /kkjk 311 na-iz-la- dks vknsf”kr fd;k tk jgk gSA

¶43

izkFkZuk&i= ds tfj;s mldk dguk gS fd mlds c;ku fnukad 1403-16 dks ys[kc) fd;s x;s FksA mDr c;ku e`rd lrohj ds lxs HkkbZ cythrflag o mldh iRuh ds ncko o cgdkos esa vkdj eSaus U;k;ky; esa fn;s FksA mDr c;ku nsrs le; og ekufld ncko esa FkhA cythrflag o mldh iRuh eq>s o esjh nksfgrh vatw dks viuh dkj esa U;k;ky; esa ysdj vk;s vkSj ncko ls c;ku djok fn;sA lrohj ds ejus ds ckn esjk o esjh nksfgrh vatw dk [kkus&ihus o jgus dk dksbZ Bksj&fBdkuk ugha Fkk] ge nksuksa cythrflag ds ?kj ij gh jg jgh Fkh blfy, mlds ekufld ncko o cgdkos esa FkhA cythr o lrohj dk vkil esa laifRr dks ysdj >xM+k FkkA eSaus fou; o lquhrk ds voS/k laca/k ugha ns[ks u gh fou; dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij lquhrk dks ?kj NksM+dj tkrs ns[kkA eSaus U;k;ky; esa tks c;ku fn;s] mldh Xykuh gks jgh gSa] esjh varjkRek dgrh gS fd U;k;ky; esa iqu% c;ku dj lgh c;ku dj ldwa rkfd U;k;ky; esa izksij o mfpr fu.kZ; esa lg;ksx gks ldsA vr% mlds c;ku U;k;ky; esa iqu% fy;s tkosaA bl laca/k esa mldh vksj ls “kiFk&i= Hkh is”k fd;k x;k rFkk U;k;

¶44

(6 of 7)

¶45

[SOSA-220/2019]

¶46

n`’Vkar 2006 ¼2½ vkj-lhvkj-Mh- 301 ¼jkt-½ vjfoan HkkVh cuke jktLFkku jkT; o 2003 vkj-lhvkj-Mh- 141 ¼jkt-½ Jherh :dek cuke jktLFkku jkT; izLrqr fd;sA

¶47

vij yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls dksbZ tokc is”k ugha dj lh/ks cgl djuk pkghA

¶48

vij yksd vfHk;kstd dk rdZ gS fd i=koyh esa vfHk;kstu lk{; lekIr gks pqdh gS rFkk izkFkhZuh lkfo=h vfHk;qDrk lquhrk dh ekW gS rFkk mlds ncko esa gksus ls lacaf/kr iz”u cpko i{k dh vksj ls ftjg ds nkSjku iwNs tk pqds gSa] bl Lrj ij bl fcUnq ij vxj dksbZ QkbZafMax U;k;ky; }kjk nh tkrh gS rks vfHk;kstu dk ekeyk izfrdwfyr gksxkA cpko i{k dh vksj ls ih-MCyw-2 ls ftjg djus dk iw.kZ volj fn;k tk pqdk gSA ;g izkFkZuk&i= cpko i{k dh vksj ls Hkh is”k ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls Hkh is”k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ih-MCyw-2 rFkkdfFkr lkfo=h uked vkSjr us vkdj is”k djuk crk;k gS tcfd mldk ;g dguk gS fd vatw mldh nksfgrh us Hkh ncko esa vkdj c;ku fn;s gSa] mldk Hkh dksbZ “kiFk&i= ugha gS vkSj u gh og U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gqbZ gSA dsoy ek= ekeys dks foyafcr fd;s tkus o U;k; fu.kZ; esa my>usa iSnk djus ds vk”k; ls ;g izkFkZuk&i= is”k fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

¶49

nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk] i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA bl izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu lk{; lekIr gks pqdh gS] i=koyh c;ku eqyfte ds LVst ij gSA ih-MCyw-2 lkfo=h ds c;ku fnuakd 14-03-16 dks fy;s x;s gSa] mlds i”pkr djhcu lok nks o’kZ i”pkr ;g izkFkZuk&i= is”k fd;k tkrk gSA ;|fi izkFkZuk&i= esa ftu vk/kkjksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] mu vk/kkjksa ds fy, cpko i{k dh vksj ls ftjg dh xbZ gS rFkk lkfo=h ds c;kuksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh tkfgj gksrk gS fd mlds nckoiw.kZ fLFkfr esa c;ku fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa ftjg esa iz”u iwNs tk pqds gS a A fdUrq izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;k; n"Vkar vjfoan HkkVh cuke jktLFkku jkT; ds ekeysa esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;k; n’Vkar ekseujke cuke jktLFkku jkT; dks vuqdr djrs gq, xokg dks fj&dkWy fd;k tkuk mfpr ekuk gS rFkk ekxZnf”kZr fd;k gS fd izdj.k ds vafre fu.kZ; ds le; xokg ds iwoZ dFkuksa ,oa i”pkrorhZ dFkuksa esa ls dkSuls dFkuksa esa lR;rk vf/kd >ydrh gS] bldk fu.kZ; djus dh “kfDr;ka U;k;ky; dks izkIr gS rFkk bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; vafre fu.kZ; ds le; Hkh fopkj dj ldrk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ;k ih-MCyw-2 lkfo=h dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rks blls fiztwfMl gksxk tcfd izdj.k ds vafre fu.kZ; ds le; xokg ds iwoZ o i”pkrorhZ c;kuksa esa ls fdl c;ku esa vf/kd lR;rk >ydrh gS] bldk fu.kZ; djus dk vf/kdkj U;k;ky; dks gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr U;k; n’Vkarksa ls ekxZn”kZu izkIr djrs gq, xokg dks fj&dkWy fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶50

vr% izkFkhZ;k lkfo=h ih-MCyw-2 dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr /kkjk 311 na-iz-la- Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls crkSj xokg fj&dkWy djus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ;k@ih-MCyw-2 dks funsZ”k fn;s tkrs gSa fd og fnukad 07-07-18 dks izkr% 10-30 cts bl U;k;ky; esa

¶51

(7 of 7)

¶52

[SOSA-220/2019]

¶53

mifLFkr jgsA mDr fnol dks mlds mifLFkr ugha vkus dh lwjr esa mls iqu% dksbZ volj lk{; gsrq ugha fn;k tk,xkA

¶54

i=koyh fnukad 07-07-18 dks is”k gks] rc rd nksuksa eqyfteku dh ts@lh- vof/k c<k;h tkrh gSA”

¶55

Virtually by this order, the trial court gave the witness an opportunity to commit perjury. No sooner, the order dated 04.07.2018 had been passed, the witness was re-examined on 20.07.2018. She resiled from her earlier version and tried to exonerate the accused appellant and was declared hostile by learned Public Prosecutor. Manifestly, this approach of the learned trial court in recalling the witness after her testimony had been concluded nearly two years ago and permitting her to give a statement contrary to what had been recorded on oath earlier is nothing short of dereliction of judicial functions because the Presiding Officer facilitated the witness to indulge in perjury. These facts need to be brought to the notice of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶56

Accordingly, we hereby direct that the copy of this order shall be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for information and necessary action.

¶57

The application for suspension of sentences is rejected with above observations.

¶58

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶59

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶60

Sudhir Asopa

Vinay Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. State

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

Smt Badli Devi Vs State

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram Vs State

Deepa Ram Vs State

Shiv Singh Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal and Anr. Vs State

State Vs Suresh Kumar