Dismissed

Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Apr 2022SOSA/122/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Rajasthan ordered a suspension of sentence application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to be dismissed. The court held that expressing opinion on contradictions in testimonies at this stage would prejudice the appeal outcome and the gravity of the gang rape allegations warranted denying suspension.

What did the court decide?

The application for suspension of sentences was dismissed.

Kana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[SOSA-122/2022]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 122/2022

¶5

Kana Ram S/o Sh. Kheema Ram, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Dayalpura, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Pali At Present Ram Rahim Colony, Pali (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Lal Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

12/04/2022

¶13

The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant-applicant Kana Ram S/o Shri Kheema Ram who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.07.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.3, District Pali in CIS No.40/2019:

¶14

Offence Under Section	Imprisonment	Fine	Sentence in default of fine
376-D IPC	Life Imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life	Rs.10,000/-	1 Year’s SI
376 (2)(L) IPC	Life Imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life	Rs.10,000/-	1 Year’s SI
366 IPC	5 Years’ RI	Rs.5,000/-	1 Year’s SI

¶15

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[SOSA-122/2022]

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences.

¶19

Shri Rameshwar Lal Dave, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the prosecution case is false and fabricated. The statement of the prosecutrix Mst. ‘A’ is unreliable. The appellant is in custody since last three and half years and hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future. The appellant is a lawyer. The prosecutrix admitted that she never engaged the appellant to represent her in any case and thus, there was no reason for her to have proceeded to the house where the appellant was present with the co-accused persons. He further urged that there are significant contradictions in the FIR, the 161 Cr.P.C. statement and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix viz. a viz., her sworn testimony. On these grounds, Shri Dave implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant Kana Ram.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel and urged that the victim had no animosity whatsoever with the appellant. She levelled distinct allegations of gang rape against the appellant and the co-accused Venaram and Mangilal (who is absconding). The application for SOS filed by co-accused Venaram has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the instant application for suspension of sentences.

¶21

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SOSA-122/2022]

¶24

Ex-facie, we are of the view that the contention of Shri Dave regarding there being contradictions interse between the FIR and the previous statements of the victim cannot be appreciated in detail at the stage of deciding an application for SOS as expression of opinion by this Court on this aspect may prejudice the final outcome of the appeal. In any event, it is an admitted position that the victim has levelled distinct allegations of gang rape on the appellant, co-convict Venaram and third accused Mangilal, who is still absconding. The victim named the appellant as the assailant in the FIR (Ex.P/4) which was lodged by her on 25.08.2018 at 12:56 AM i.e., just within a few hours of the incident. There is no allegation of prior animosity between the appellant and the victim which could persuade her to lodge a false case of rape naming the appellant as one of the assailants. The application for SOS filed by Shri Venaram was got dismissed as not pressed.

¶25

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature and gravity of allegations attributed to the appellant, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to him by the learned trial court. Consequently, the instant application for suspension of sentences is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶26

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶27

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶28

35-/Sudhir Asopa/Devesh/-

Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kana Ram 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

Seema Vs the Union of India

Devendra Choudhary Vs Manisha Choudhary

Dhulji @ Dhuleshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hamira Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharif Khan @ Pappukhan Vs State and Ors.

Lakhveer Singh @ Lakhu Vs State of Rajasthan