High Court allowed suspension of life imprisonment and fine with default sentence for accused convicted of murder, releasing him on bail pending appeal due to plausible grounds to assail conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Sentences suspended; accused released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.
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. 931/2022
Gom Singh S/o Megh Singh Rawat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Swadari-A, P.s. Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand, At Present Charda Ka Khet, Raghunathpura, Rajsamand. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Rajsamand).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Pallav Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/12/2022
The appellant-applicant has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.52/2019 (CIS No.117/2019):-
| Offence | Imprisonment | Fine | Sentence in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under | default of fine | ||
| Section | |||
| 302 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | 6 Months’ SI |
He has moved the instant application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentences and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
(2 of 4)
[SOSA-931/2022]
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for SOS as per which, the appellant has remained in custody for a period of nearly 3 years and 5 months as on date. He stands convicted for one case under the Forest Act in the year 2008 in addition to present case.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
The prosecution charge that the appellant herein murdered his own brother Gaman Singh is based on purely circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no evidence of motive against the accused appellant. The prosecution has portrayed the circumstance of last seen and blood stained recoveries so as to prove the charge. However, on a thorough appreciation of impugned judgment, it is clear that no plausible evidence was led by the prosecution so as to establish the circumstance of last seen. The material evidence in this regard is that of Leela Devi (PW.2). However, on a bare perusal of the sworn testimony of the said witness, it is clear that she did not utter a single word of having seen the appellant and the deceased in each other’s company any time before the incident. Likewise, Raju Singh (PW.7), son of the deceased also did not state that he had seen the appellant and the deceased in each other’s company. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Gaman Singh was previously convicted for the murder of a man named Heera Singh who belonged to his own village and thus, the possibility of Gaman Singh having been murdered in revenge cannot be ruled out.
(3 of 4)
[SOSA-931/2022]
Whether or not, the sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained stick and the blood stained clothes of the accused could be conclusive to establish his guilt would be for this Court to examine when the appeal is being finally decided. However for the present, we are of the view that the appellant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.
Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 29.06.2022 in Sessions Case No.52/2019 (CIS No.117/2019) against the appellantapplicant Gom Singh S/o Shri Megh Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 09.01.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(4 of 4)
[SOSA-931/2022]
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/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 to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
13-Sudhir Asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of sentences and release on bail during the pendency of appeal is allowed under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gom Singh
State of Rajasthan
SANDEEP MEHTA
KULDEEP MATHUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
