High Court suspended the life sentence awarded to the appellant in an appeal under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. without commenting on the merits of his challenge to conviction and sentencing.
The substantive sentence of the Sessions Judge was suspended till final disposal of the appeal, conditioned upon execution of a personal bond and appearance before the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JD:37401-DB]
[SOSA-315/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 315/2023
Devaram S/o Shri Ganeshaji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Velangari, P.s. Anadara, Tehsil And District Sirohi, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
02/11/2023
The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred by the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.12.2020 in Sessions Case No.13/2014 (CIS No.143/2014). The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as under:-
| Offence U/s | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of payment of fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| 302 IPC | Life | Rs.10,000/- | Six months’ RI |
| Imprisonment |
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in sentencing and convicting the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment.
[2023:RJ-JD:37401-DB]
[SOSA-315/2023]
(2 of 4)
Learned counsel has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR as the incident took place on 11.11.2013, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.11.2013. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution or its witnesses. Learned counsel has also submitted that as a matter of fact, the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the so-called dying declaration of the deceased, wherein it is alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on her and thereafter lit the fire. Learned counsel has submitted that even after receiving the information, the Police did not register any FIR against the appellant. It is also submitted that Devendra Singh, Head Constable had initially recorded statement of the deceased, however, neither copy of the same has been produced by the prosecution nor Devendra Singh, Head Constable was produced as witness by the prosecution before the trial court.
Learned counsel has further submitted that it has come on record that the appellant had also suffered burn injuries while rescuing the deceased. However, the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the said fact and has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant by the impugned judgment while solely placing reliance on the so-called dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel has also submitted that while recording the statement of the deceased on 14.11.2023, the Magistrate concerned ignored the fact that the deceased was not in condition to give her statement as she was in confused state of mind on account of burning injuries, which she suffered because of pouring kerosene upon herself. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is in custody
(3 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JD:37401-DB]
[SOSA-315/2023]
since 08.01.2014 and he has almost undergone sentence of 10 years including remission. It is also submitted that hearing of the appeal preferred on behalf of appellant is likely to take time.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant.
Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi vide judgment dated 22.12.2020 in Sessions Case No.13/2014 (CIS No.143/2014) against appellant - Devaram S/o Shri Ganeshaji shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, provided he 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 his appearance in this Court on 18.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(4 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JD:37401-DB]
[SOSA-315/2023]
they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
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 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.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
33-Hanuman/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant in the appeal can be suspended when the merit of the case is not adjudicated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devaram S/o Shri Ganeshaji
State Of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
MUNNURI LAXMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
