Allowed

Bhupesh Lohar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2023SOSA/148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed suspension of sentence and bail for two petitioners convicted under SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court cited discrepancies between the injury and post-mortem reports as grounds for indulgence, directing release subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. allowed; petitioners released on bail with personal bond and sureties.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25819]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 149/2023

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.232/2023

¶6

Pawan Harijan S/o Shri Shankarlal Harijan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 112, D Block, Sector 9, Hiranmagri, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 148/2023

¶13

¶14

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.232/2023

¶15

Bhupesh Lohar S/o Prabhulal Lohar, Aged About 29 Years, Chanbor Fala Kaya, P.s. Goverdhanvilas, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Mukesh S/o Udailal Gameti, Ambafala, P.s. Hiranmagari, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Menaria
	Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
	Mr. AnujSahlot
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati,PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶22

Order

¶23

16/08/2023

¶24

The instant applications for suspension of sentence have been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge,

[SOSA-149/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:25819]

(2 of 4)

SC/ST Act Court, District Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.11/2016 (CIS No.107/2017) for the offences under Sections 304/149, 147, 148, 336 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ ST Act.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, there was no previous animosity between the parties and the dispute arose in spur of the moment on a very trivial issue. Now, there are allegations that the mother of the complainant and the complainant himself tried to cool down the dispute between the appellant and the deceased Jitendra and it is alleged that after half an hour, they came there again along with co-accused Ajay who happens to be a juvenile. For him, the proceeding under Juvenile Justice Act is underway.

¶30

Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court towards ExP.4, which is alleged at the instance of complainant PW.4 and nowhere in the report as well as in his statement, it is reflected that any specific or overt act has been attributed to the appellants. Learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court towards Ex-P.16, the injury report of Jitendra prepared on the very same day and time, as per which, the doctor noticed only one laceration on the left side of his forehead. It is contended that on 28.02.2016, he came back home and thereafter, he died on 03.03.2016. As per the postmortem report (Ex-P.18), the cause of death was shown to be coma due to antemortem head injury. There is no specific assertion as to who was the author of the fatal blow. It is submitted that the appellants have a strong arguable case and rather hope of success in this appeal. The hearing of the

[2023:RJ-JD:25819]

[SOSA-149/2023]

(3 of 4)

same is likely to take a long time. During the trial, the appellants were on bail, and during that time, they never abused the liberty granted to them. The appellants served about nine months in incarceration.

¶35

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-appellants. 5. I have minutely gone through the record of the case. The defects pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants and the submissions made at their end are required to be considered again. Additionally, the discrepancy between the injury report and the postmortem report further persuaded this Court to make indulgence in this matter though observation at this stage may put a dent on the merit of the case, thus, while refraining from that, but considering overall submissions, this Court deems it fit to allow the application for Suspension of Sentence.

¶36

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Udaipur who passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 in Special Sessions Case No.11/2016 against the petitioners-applicants- Pawan Harijan S/o Shri Shankarlal Harijan and Bhupesh Lohar S/o Prabhulal Lohar shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision and they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a 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 their appearance in this

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:25819]

[SOSA-149/2023]

court on 16.09.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the revision on the conditions indicated below:-

¶41

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

¶42

That if the applicants changes 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.

¶43

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

¶44

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedapplicant 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 pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶45

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶46

197-198-Rashi/-

Bhupesh Lohar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh Lohar 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

Ganpat Ram and Anr. Vs State

Indra Raj Vs State

Kapil Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit @ Bablu Vs Ncb Jodhpur

Khangar Singh Vs State