Dismissed

Dayalal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2023SOSA/1191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a D.B. Criminal Misc. application, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered two applications for suspension of sentence. While allowing suspension for co-accused involved with a knife, the Court distinguished the appellant who wielded a lathi. Rejecting the second application, the Court dismissed the petition on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence dismissed.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38061-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1191/2023

¶4

Dayalal S/o Gaurishankar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nalwa Fala Lodan, P.s. Sadar, Dungarpur Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At District Jail Udaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Chhaparwal, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

06/11/2023

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant by impugned judgment. It is submitted that the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from the case of co-accused Pintu Kumar, whose sentence has already been suspended by this Court on 21.08.2020.

¶14

It is argued that in Exhibit (P-1) i.e. FIR, Naresh (P.W.-1) has specifically stated that co-accused Pintu Kumar and Mahendra Kumar had inflicted injuries on head of the deceased and thereafter, appellant Dayalal and co-accused Gauri Shankar inflicted injuries with lathi.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that Smt. Champa (P.W.-11), in her court statement, had submitted

¶16

[2023:RJ-JD:38061-DB]

¶17

[SOSA-1191/2023]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

that co-accused Pintu Kumar inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from the case of co-accused Pintu Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, whose sentences have already been suspended by this Court and therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant Dayalal by the trial court is also liable to be suspended.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and invited our attention towards the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Court, whereby the first application for suspension of sentence of appellant Dayalal has been rejected. It is submitted that this Court, taking into consideration the court statement of the eye witnesses, has clearly observed that as per the eye witnesses, the appellant Dayalal and co-accused Gauri Shankar armed with lathis have assaulted the deceased. This Court has also observed that the allegations of eye witnesses are duly corroborated with the medical testimony and thus, the first application for suspension of sentence of appellant has been rejected.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Pintu Kumar as in the FIR as well as the statement of the eye witnesses namely Naresh (P.W.-1) and Smt. Neema (P.W.-3), it was alleged that the co-accused were armed with knife, however, no injury of knife was found on the body of the deceased.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that once the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant has

¶23

[2023:RJ-JD:38061-DB]

¶24

[SOSA-1191/2023]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

been dismissed on merits, the second application for suspension of application is liable to be rejected.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after going through the order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2020, whereby the first application for suspension of sentence of the appellant has been rejected and order dated 21.08.2020, whereby the application for suspension of sentence of Pintu Kumar is allowed, we find that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the co-accused persons, namely, Pintu Kumar and Mahendra Kumar and keeping in view the fact that the first application for suspension of the sentence of the appellant was rejected on merits, we are not inclined to allow this application for suspension of sentence.

¶28

Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶29

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶30

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶31

26-AjaySingh/-

Dayalal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayalal 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

Sharvan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Saroj Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandrashekhar @ Shekhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan