BJ重阳节The High Court rejected the application for suspension of sentences. The court found strong motive due to social leverage and cross-relations, disbelieving the defense that only Teja Ram was involved, and affirmed probable participation of all accused in the murder.
The application for suspension of sentences was rejected.
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 AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 282/2019
All B/c Choudhary And R/o Village Elana , P.S & Tehsil Jalore , Distt. Jalore (Raj) (Presently Lodged In Distt. Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Bhati,PP Mr.J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Amardeep Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
15/04/2019
Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellants-applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant.
Learned Counsel Shri Pradeep Shah pressing the instant application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicants Mangilal, Venaram, Smt. Sayati Devi and Smt. Suwa vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is
(2 of 5)
[SOSA-282/2019]
false and fabricated. The FIR was lodged after a significant delay of twelve days. The appellants had no motive to kill the deceased Hanjaram. The statement of star prosecution eye-witness Kana Ram (PW.10) was recorded after a delay of 13 days; that the lathies recovered at the instance of appellants Mangilal and Venaram did not test positive for presence of human blood. As per him, even if the prosecution story is momentarily believed to be true then also, recovery of the dead body of deceased Hanjaram was found buried under sand was made at the instance of accused-applicant Teja Ram and thus, as per him the accused applicants other than Teja Ram cannot be implicated for the alleged offences as there exists no evidence worth belief on the entire record so as to connect them with the alleged crime. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicants herein.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S.Bhati and Shri J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Amardeep Singh Lamba representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Shah. They urged that the relations between the parties existed in the form of ‘Aata-Sata’ marriage that is to say that deceased Hanjaram S/o Shri Madaji was married to Suwa D/o accused Teja Ram whereas Smt. Sayati, sister of the first informant Kistura Ram was married to accused appellant Mangilal, brother of Teja Ram. Since the deceased Hanjaram was a simpleton, the accused applicant Suwa was mostly living at her father’s house. However, Hanjaram and his family members were pressing that she should be sent to the
(3 of 5)
[SOSA-282/2019]
matrimonial home. Thus, the accused party hatched a design to eliminate Hanjaram and with this objective, he was called by the accused to their home while giving a false assurance. There, he was tied up to a Khejari tree and was brutally beaten and then, his dead body was buried in the fields. Shri Choudhary submitted that the complainant party had no reason to believe that the accused would take such a drastic step of murdering Hanjaram and thus, they did not take his absence too seriously but when hints were received that Hanjaram might have been killed, FIR No.187/2015 (Ex.P/40) was lodged. Immediately thereafter, the witness Kanaram was examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation and in his statement, Kanaram categorically alleged that he saw all the five accused convicts including the applicants herein assaulting the deceased by lathies. The dead body of Hanjaram was recovered buried under sand in a sitting posture in presence of Mr.Rajendra Singh, SDM (PW.13). They urged that the accused party had strong motive to kill the deceased as the accused applicant Suwa had a strong disliking for him (Hanjaram). As per him, the fact that the deceased Hanjaram was called by the accused party to their home and thereafter, his dead body was recovered buried under sand are sufficient to draw adverse inference against the accused persons. They, thus, implored the Court to dismiss the instant application for suspension of sentences.
We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by them and have gone through the material available on record.
(4 of 5)
[SOSA-282/2019]
The contention of Mr. Shah that the evidence of prosecution witness even if accepted at the highest would only be sufficient to implicate the accused Teja Ram does not convince us even for a moment. It is clear as day light that the accused party had a strong motive to eliminate the deceased Hanjaram as his wife, the accused applicant Suwa had a strong disliking for him. Further since it was a case of cross relations, manifestly, the complainant party had a social leverage to insist that the accused applicant Suwa should be sent to live with the deceased Hanjaram. Thus, elimination of Hanjaram was an easy alternative. With this objective in mind, the deceased Hanjaram was called by the accused party to their home and was murdered and his dead body buried under sand. The accused persons gave evasive replies regarding his absence for a long duration. No sooner the matter (FIR - Ex.P/40) was reported by Kistura Ram (PW.19), the witness Kanaram gathered courage to divulge to the police that he had seen all the five accused persons assaulting Hanjaram who had been tied up to a Khejari tree. The dead body of the deceased Hanjaram was recovered buried under sand in a sitting position in presence of SDM. The circumstances clearly point out towards participation of more than one accused in the murder. As is apparent from the above narration of facts, the accused party had strong motive to kill the deceased Hanjaram. Thus, at this stage, there are no reasons for us to disbelieve or discard the evidence of Kana Ram (PW.10).
In this background, we are not inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants, which is rejected as such. However, it is
(5 of 5)
[SOSA-282/2019]
made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall be restricted only for the purpose of disposal of the instant application for suspension of sentences.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
16-1/- Sudhir Asopa
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for suspension of sentences should be accepted given the prosecution evidence.
Whether the accused parties are connected to the crime of murder based on available evidence.
Whether there is sufficient motive for the accused to commit the alleged murder.
Mangilal
Venaram
Smt. Sayati Devi
Smt. Suwa
State Of Rajasthan
Sandeep Mehta
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
