Partly allowed

Idris S/O Kamlu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2020SOSA/1730/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants suspension of the substantive sentence awarded to two appellants, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, convicted under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The application for the third appellant, Idris, was dismissed. The court imposed bond conditions for the suspension.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence awarded to Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen subject to bond and appearance conditions; application for Idris dismissed.

Idris S/O Kamlu Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.1730/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 385/2019

¶5

Idris S/o Kamlu,

¶6

Hakmu @ Hakmuddin S/o Idris,

¶7

Samaydeen S/o Idris,

¶8

All are by caste Mev, R/o Naugavan, Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At present accused appellants confined in Central Jail Sewar, District-Bharatpur)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.R. Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kumar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar. Mr. Hemendra Goyal.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶14

Order

¶15

08/01/2020

¶16

This application seeking suspension of sentence is filed on behalf of applicants/appellants, Idris, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, who have been convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 307 & 307/34 of IPC and sentenced as

¶17

under:

¶18

341 IPC	One month’s simple imprisonment with Rs.200/- with default stipulation to undergo seven days’ additional imprisonment.	fine of further simple
323 IPC	Three months’ simple imprisonment with Rs.1000/- with default stipulation to undergo 21 days’ additional imprisonment.	fine of further simple

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[SOSA-1730/2019]

¶21

307 & 307/34 IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶22

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of applicant/appellant, Idris.

¶23

Accordingly, application preferred on behalf of Idris, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for applicants submitted that the gunshot injuries reflected in the injury report and x-ray report are attributed to co-convict, namely, Idris, however, other two injuries found on the person of victim, are simple in nature. It is submitted that no specific overtact connecting applicants, namely, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, in commission of offence under Section 307 IPC is disclosed in the evidence recorded during trial and they have been convicted only with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. It is submitted that during trial the applicants, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, were on bail.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the application alleging that presence of applicants, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, is established on the basis of evidence on record and it has also come on record that Hakmu @ Hakmuddin was armed with gun and Samaydeen was armed with a ‘Lathi’. It is, however, not disputed that no specific overtact on the part of Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, stands established on the basis of evidence on record.

¶26

Having considered the submissions and taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[SOSA-1730/2019]

¶29

consider it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the applicants, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen.

¶30

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of applicants, Hakmu @ Hakmuddin and Samaydeen, is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur, vide judgment dated 04.10.2019 in Session Case No.12/2014 against the applicants- Hakmu @ Hakmuddin S/o Idris and Samaydeen S/o Idris, shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the leaned trial court for their appearance in this Court on 10.02.2020 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions: -

¶31

1.That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided

¶32

2.That if the appellants-applicants change/s the place of residence, they will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court.

¶33

3.Similarly if sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court.

¶34

The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the applicants/appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[SOSA-1730/2019]

¶37

to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶38

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶39

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶40

DJ/- 7

Idris S/O Kamlu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idris S/O Kamlu 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

Sanwariya @ Sanwra S/O Rambharos Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Kana Ram Vs State of Raj.

Ghanshyam Agarwal S/O Late Shri Dwarika Prasad Agarwal B/C Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Malawat Son of Shri Mukhtiyar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlot Mallah S/O Jaishree Mallah Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh S/O Motu Vs Jagdish S/O Gyarsa