Allowed

Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2023SOSA/1190/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The court reasoned that life-threatening injuries were assigned to a co-accused (Vinod) who did not press for bail, thus warranting suspension for the other appellants on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Sentence passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 25.07.2023 in Sessions Case No.32/2014 against the appellant-applicants shall remain su

Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1190/2023

¶3

Hanuman S/o Sohanlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mota Panniwala Ps Odha Dist. Sirsa Haryana Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh.

¶4

Sunil S/o Dalip, aged about 29 years, resident of Mota Panniwala, Police Station Odha, Distt. Sirsa, Haryana Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh.

¶5

Sandeep S/o Heera Lal, aged about 29 years, resident of Mota Panniwala, Police Station Odha, Distt. Sirsa, Haryana Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Kalu Ram S/o Parsa Ram, resident of Chak-6-DWD, Tehsil Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶11

----Complainant

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 946/2023

¶14

Sohan Lal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 12Kwd Ps Rawatsar Dist. Hanumangarh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

¶15

Vinod S/o Sohan Lal, aged 32 years, resident of 12KWD, P.S. Rawatsar Distt. Hanumangarh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

¶16

----Appellants

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

		(2 of 6) [SOSA-1190/2023]
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Kulwant Singh Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	R. R. Chapparwal, PP
	Mr.	Nishant Motsara for complainant

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶22

Order

¶23

05/12/2023

¶24

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

¶25

At the outset, Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicants in (D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.946/2023) has submitted that he does not want to press the bail application preferred on behalf of appellant-applicant - Vinod S/o Sohan Lal at this stage.

¶26

Hence, the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of appellant-applicant – Vinod S/o Sohan Lal is dismissed as not pressed at this stage.

¶27

The instant applications for suspension of sentence have been preferred by the appellant-applicants, who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 25.07.2023 in Sessions Case No.32/2014. The appellantapplicants have been sentenced as under :-

¶28

Offence U/s	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default
			ofpayment of fine

¶29

(3 of 6)

¶30

[SOSA-1190/2023]

¶31

148 of IPC	Three Years’ SI	Rs.10000/-	Four Months’ SI
341 of IPC	One Month’s SI	-	-
323/149 of	One Year’s SI	Rs.1000/-	One Month’s SI
IPC		each
325/149 of	Seven years’ SI	Rs.5000/-	Two months’ SI
IPC		each
307/149 of	Life	Rs.20000/-	One Year’s SI
IPC	Imprisonment	each
460 of IPC	Ten Years’ SI	Rs.10000/- each	Six months’ SI

¶32

Appellant-applicants namely Hanuman, Sunil and Sandeep were also convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases and sentenced as under :

¶33

Offence U/s	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default
			ofpayment of fine
3(2)(v) of	Life	Rs.20000/-	One Year’s SI
the SC/ST	Imprisonment

¶34

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellant-applicants - Hanuman S/o Sohanlal, Sunil S/o Dalip, Sandeep S/o Heera Lal and Sohan Lal S/o Hari Ram have submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the above-named appellant-applicants vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no allegation against the appellantapplicants that they had inflicted injury on the head of injured eye-witness PW-5 Shrawan Kumar, which is dangerous to life and the allegation of inflicting the said dangerous head injury is against co-accused Vinod. It is also submitted that all the other

¶35

[SOSA-1190/2023]

¶36

(4 of 6)

¶37

injured eye-witnesses are not in receipt of any injury, which is dangerous to life. Learned counsel has further submitted that as a matter of fact, in the FIR, the appellant-applicant - Hanuman was not named, however in respect of appellant-applicant - Sohan Lal, it is submitted that he was armed with a sword, however the police has recovered only a stick at his instance. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant-applicants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicants - Hanuman S/o Sohanlal, Sunil S/o Dalip, Sandeep S/o Heera Lal and Sohan Lal S/o Hari Ram by the trial court may be suspended.

¶38

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the applications for suspension of sentence.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after going through the record of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the life threatening injury is assigned to appellantapplicant Vinod by the injured eye-witness PW-5 Shrawan Kumar, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspended the sentence awarded to appellantapplicants - Hanuman S/o Sohanlal, Sunil S/o Dalip, Sandeep S/o Heera Lal and Sohan Lal S/o Hari Ram .

¶40

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence (1190/2023) preferred on behalf of appellant-applicants - Hanuman S/o Sohanlal, Sunil S/o Dalip, Sandeep S/o Heera Lal and application for suspension of sentence (946/2023) preferred on behalf of appellant-applicant - Sohan Lal S/o Hari

¶41

[SOSA-1190/2023]

¶42

(5 of 6)

¶43

Ram are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 25.07.2023 in Sessions Case No.32/2014 against appellant-applicants Hanuman S/o

¶44

Sohanlal, Sunil S/o Dalip, Sandeep S/o Heera Lal and Sohan Lal S/o Hari Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeals, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 23.1.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶45

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶46

That if the appellants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶47

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

¶48

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedappellant was 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

¶49

[SOSA-1190/2023]

¶50

(6 of 6)

¶51

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

¶52

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶53

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶54

32-mSingh/-

Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman 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. Ravi Infrabuild Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dudiya Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S.Shree Ram Traders Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mahaveer Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ranveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagat Pal Vs State of Rajasthan