Dismissed

Pappu @ Purkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2023SOSA/1049/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed this application for suspension of sentence. Despite the grave nature of offences involving murder and sexual assault on minors, the bench inclined to suspend the award but ultimately exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without granting relief.

What did the court decide?

The application for suspension of sentence was dismissed; no sentence was suspended.

Pappu @ Purkharam Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1049/2022

¶3

Pappu @ Purkharam S/o Shri Surta, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Rakhana, P.s. Rohat, Dist. Pali (Marwar), Rajasthan. At Present Lodged In Jail, At Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shashi Prakash Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. B.R. Bishnoi,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶10

Order

¶11

06/02/2023

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence.

¶13

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred by the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 & Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 vide judgment dated 28.11.2019 in Sessions Case No.1/2018. The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as under :-

¶14

Offence U/s	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of payment of fine
302 IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	1 months’ S.I.
302 IPC	Life	Rs.5,000/-	1 months’ S.I.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SOSA-1049/2022]

¶17

	imprisonment
376-A IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	1 months’ S.I.
376(2)(f)IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	1 months’ S.I.
376(2)(i) IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	1 months’ S.I.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment dated 28.11.2019. It is argued that no direct evidence is produced by the prosecution and the conviction of the appellant-applicant is based solely of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is not cogent and reliable and the learned trial court has grossly erred in relying on the same. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial court has also erred in drawing presumption against the appellant-applicant. It is also submitted that the appellantapplicant is in jail around more than eight years and the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant may be suspended.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and argued that the appellant-applicant is found guilty of murder of his two children. It is also submitted that the prosecution has produced cogent and reliable evidence to prove its case and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has found the appellant-applicant guilty of committing heinous crime of sexual assault on his minor daughter and by

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[SOSA-1049/2022]

¶22

committing murder of his minor children. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, prays that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant may not be suspended.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that two minor children have been murdered and a minor girl has been sexually assaulted in this case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant.

¶24

Hence, this application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶25

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

27-nitin/-

Pappu @ Purkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu @ Purkharam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Maa Stone Vs State of Rajasthan

Khemraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Ugiya Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahacity Public Senior Secondary School Vs State of Rajasthan