Dismissed

Raimal S/O Obaji, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 May 2019SOSA/488/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appellant's application for suspension of his criminal sentence. The court rejected the plea that no stone injuries were found on the deceased, noting medical evidence confirmed blunt force injuries attributable to the appellant's stone. The court distinguished the appellant's case from co-accused with suspended sentences and rejected claims of a free fight or lack of c

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence dismissed as devoid of merit.

Raimal S/O Obaji, Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 488/2019

¶3

Raimal S/o Obaji, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Koli, Residents Of Dhanpura, P.s. Ameergarh, District Banaskantha Gujarat. At Present Jujapura Kheda Bhatana, P.s. Mandar, District Sirohi. At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Bhati, PP Mr.Pradeep Shah for complainant.

¶9

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

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

02/05/2019

¶12

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences. He proposes to argue the matter orally.

¶13

Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record.

¶14

Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Deora has contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been attributed a stone in his hand, whereas no injury by a stone was noticed on the body of the deceased Parbat Singh when the same was subjected to postmortem. He further urged that as per

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[SOSA-488/2019]

¶17

the evidence of PW-21 Devi Singh, the role of the applicantappellant is identical to that of the co-accused persons namely Jaisung Ram S/o Jagsi and Galba Ram S/o Bhaga Ram whose sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2017 passed in D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.1295/2017. He also referred to the statement of PW-24 Gulab Singh S/o Shakti Singh and urged that his testimony is hearsay in nature and thus is not admissible in evidence. He submits that even though the witness Gulab Singh (PW.24) has given hearsay evidence but still as per his testimony, the appellant was not present in the Jeep from which the principal accused got down. He further submits that no specific injury suffered either by the deceased Parbat Snigh or the injured Govind Singh is attributed to the applicant. There is no evidence of criminal conspiracy and the case at hand was of a free fight. The appellant had no motive to inflict any injury or to kill the deceased Parbat Singh or to cause grievous hurt the injured Govind Singh. The incident happened at the spur of moment and rather, the deceased received injuries in an accident. He further urged that on some aspects, the case of the present applicant appellant is on better footing then that of co-accused persons Jaisung Ram and Galba Ram whose sentences have been suspended by this Court because the deadly blunt weapon which were recovered from them were having the same blood group as that of the deceased Parbat Singh. The applicant was previously released on parole on two occasions and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He submits that the only distinction in the case of the present applicant-appellant and of those co-accused Jaisung Ram and Galba Ram, who have been enlarged on bail is that the applicant-appellant is named in the

¶18

(3 of 5)

¶19

[SOSA-488/2019]

¶20

FIR. As per him, the case of the applicant-appellant is on significantly better footing then that of co-accused Arjun Ram whose application for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court. He further urges that the appellant is in custody for a period nearly seven years and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and hence, the applicant deserves indulgence of bail on parity with those accused whose sentences have been suspended by this Court.

¶21

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pradeep Shah representing the complainant drew the Court’s attention to the FIR (Ex.P/9), wherein, the applicant is specifically named as an assailant with his brothers who all being sons of Obaji participated in the assault made on the deceased Parbat Singh and the injured Govind Singh. They urged that there was a long standing land dispute between the parties which led to the assault in question. They also drew the Court’s attention to the statement of injured witness PW-5 Govind Singh Singh who received 22 injuries in the incident. They pointed out that Govind Singh has specifically named the applicant as an assailant who was sitting in the same vehicle with his brothers Arjunram, Prabhuram, Besararam, Mamcharam and Ganeshram. All the occupants of the vehicle got down with a prior design and common object of assaulting the members of the complainant party. The appellant was having stone in his hand whereas the others were having various other weapons. All of them accosted the witness and Parbat Singh. The deceased Parbat Singh as well as the injured Govind Singh were inflicted numerous injuries by the weapons in hands of the assailants including stone blows. They also drew the

¶22

(4 of 5) [SOSA-488/2019]

¶23

Court’s attention to the statement of the Medical Jurist Dr. Sharad Saxena (PW-22) who conducted postmortem upon the body of the deceased Parbat Singh (Ex.P.72) noticing numerous blunt as well as sharp weapon injuries. They further drew the attention of the Court towards the medical report of the injured Govind Singh wherein as many as 22 injuries are described. They urged that the injuries of Govind Singh were opined to be endangering to life. As per them, the participation of the appellant in the incident is well established by the evidence of eyewitness Mr.Govind Singh and the trivial contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses who gave evidence of heresay cannot detract anything from his evidence. They further contended that the case of the applicant is in no manner distinguishable from that of co-accused Arjun Ram whose application for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court. All the sons of Obaji including the appelalnt were present in the Jeep. They indiscriminatly assaulted the deceased Parbat Singh and the injured Govind Singh and the violence led to the death of deceased Parbat Singh. On these grounds, they craved dismissal of the instant application for suspension of sentence.

¶24

We have given our thoughtful consideration and have gone through the material available on record,

¶25

Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the view that the case of the accused-applicant is totally distinguishable from that of the co-accused including Jaisung Ram and Galba Ram whose sentences have been suspended by this Court. The reasons for this conclusion are writ large on the face of record. The appellant

¶26

(5 of 5)

¶27

[SOSA-488/2019]

¶28

is named in the FIR along with his brothers (co-convicts), all of whom were sitting in the same Jeep which was used in commission of the crime. The appellant was armed with a stone and numerous injuries were inflicted to the deceased Parbat Singh as well as to the injured Govind Singh by the blows of stone. The contention of Mr. Deora that no stone injury was received by the deceased Parbat Singh or the injured Govind Singh is negated by the evidence of the medical jurist Dr. Sharad Saxena (PW.22) as referred (Supra). Thus, we are well satisfied about the participation of the appellant in the incident and, in our opinion, it is the fittest case for application of Section 149 IPC. The contention of Mr. Deora that the accused-appellant has suffered long incarceration can very well be addressed by hearing the appeal in the order of priority.

¶29

With these observations, the instant application for suspension of sentences is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶30

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶31

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶32

28-1/-

¶33

Sudhir Asopa

Raimal S/O Obaji, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raimal S/O Obaji, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kailash Vs State

Vipin @ Vivek @ Vikka Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhula Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanheya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Badar Vs State