Allowed

Sitaram @ Jeetu Son of Shri Nanag Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2023SOSA/1555/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, in a criminal appeal against a murder conviction, allowed accused-applicants' suspension of sentence applications. The court noted the case relied on circumstantial evidence, the dead body was recovered before the accused's arrest, and noted a missing person report discrepancy.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence awarded in Sessions Case No.15/2018 allowed. Appellants directed to furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Sitaram @ Jeetu Son of Shri Nanag Ram Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007840]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1556/2022

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.246/2022

¶6

Hanuman Sahay Son Of Shri Nanag Ram, Resident Of Meeno Ka Mohalla, Aalisar, Police Station Govindgarh. (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶7

–---Accused-Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1555/2022

¶13

¶14

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.246/2022

¶15

Sitaram @ Jeetu Son Of Shri Nanag Ram, Resident Of Meeno Ka Mohalla, Aalisar, Police Station Govindgarh. (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶16

----Accused-Applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg Mr. Hem Bhushan Vedi For State : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. Govt. Adv. For Victim : Mr. Rajendra Singh

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

24/04/2023

[2023/RJJP/007840]

[SOSA-1556/2022]

(2 of 3)

Accused-applicants have preferred these application for suspension of sentence.

¶28

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

¶29

It is contended by counsel for the accused-applicants that accused-applicant-Sitaram was arrested at 03:30 p.m. on 08.05.2018 and prior to that the dead body was recovered. However, an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been recorded and it is shown that the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused-applicant-Sitaram. It is further contended that in the Missing Person Report, there is no mention that deceased went with accused-applicant-Sitaram. It is also contended that there is no evidence against accused-applicantHanuman Sahay and he was on bail during trial.

¶30

It is next contended by counsel for the accused-applicants that the witness to whom the extra-judicial confession was made, has turned hostile.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel appearing for the victim have opposed these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶32

We have considered the contentions.

¶33

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicants; also taking note of the fact that case rests upon circumstantial evidence and names of accused-applicants were not appearing in the Missing Person Report and the dead body was recovered prior to the arrest of accused-Sitaram and recording of the statement of accused-Sitaram under Section 27 of the

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/007840]

[SOSA-1556/2022]

Evidence Act and without commenting upon merits of the case, we deem it proper to allow these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶38

Accordingly, these applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to the present accused-applicants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.15/2018 (C.I.S. No.75/2018) (State of Rajasthan vs. Sitaram & Anr.), shall remain suspended if the accused-applicants furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶39

Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶40

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶41

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶42

AMIT/17-18

Sitaram @ Jeetu Son of Shri Nanag Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram @ Jeetu Son of Shri Nanag Ram 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

Hariram Meena S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahay Vs the State of Rajasthan

Birdhilal S/O Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Lal S/O Shri Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Sahay Son of Shri Nanag Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Lalchand S/O Nandlal

Naresh Meena S/O Gagani Ram Vs State of Rajasthan