Dismissed

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Apr 2023SOSA/176/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application for suspension of sentence filed by an appellant sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The court refused bail citing prosecution evidence including witness statements and forensic reports without delving into the merits of the appellant's plea of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking suspension of sentence dismissed; accused remained in custody.

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 176/2023

¶3

Mukesh S/o Sh. Nagaji, Aged About 31 Years, Golpura Panchayat Kuradiya, Teh. Nalchha, Dist. Dhar (Mp). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Deepak Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Anil Joshi, G.A. - cum- AAG with
		Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶10

Order

¶11

12/04/2023

¶12

An application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused-applicant, whereby by the judgment dated 09.04.2019, the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment along with penalty of Rs.2,000/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant made submissions that the allegations made against the applicant, wherein there are no eyewitnesses, of having committed murder of his father-in-law, are highly improbable. With reference to the time indicated by PW-3 Madhu, PW-8 Kalu Singh & PW-9 Sunil regarding reporting of the time of incident and further indications made regarding the fact that the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from the kitchen of the house where the incident occurred, it was submitted that

¶14

[SOSA-176/2023]

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

the applicant was falsely framed in the case and as the applicant has already undergone the sentence for over 07 years & 11 months, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted with reference to the statement of PW-3 wife of the applicant that she has made specific statement regarding the offence having been committed by the applicant and that minor alleged contradictions are not sufficient for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Further submissions were made with reference to the FSL report, wherein the blood group of the deceased matched with the blood stains on weapon of offence as well as on pants the applicant was wearing, it was prayed that the application be rejected.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record as well as the statements referred to by the parties, without commenting on the relative merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to accept the application seeking suspension of sentence, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶20

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶21

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶22

31-Rmathur/-

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Ganpat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aamdeen Vs State

Arif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Nagda Nagda Vs State of Rajasthan