Single judge allowed a SUSPENSION of sentence application filed by appellants in pending appeal against conviction and sentence. Court granted bail pending appeal upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.
Suspension of sentence granted; personal bond in Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each directed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.
724/2023
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal no. 1056/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP Mr. Asad Ul Haq Nooree
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
10/07/2023
This application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted for hearing on 10.05.2023 filed aggrieved of order of conviction and sentence dated 26.04.2023 in sessions case No. 20/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 323/34, 307/149 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year, rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine respectively.
[SOSA-724/2023]
(2 of 5)
Learned counsel for appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that parties belong to same family and it was complainant party who was aggressor. He further submitted that from statement of PW-1 it was admitted that the land in question was in possession of accused party and a civil suit is already pending before the court of ACM, Karauli. He further submitted that both injured PW-1, Bablu @ Prithiviraj and PW-4 Sheeshram have admitted that disputed land was in possession of accused and they stopped accused party from digging a borewell. He further submitted that from the statement of PW-14 it was established that injured Sheeshram, Bhagwan and Prithviraj @ Bablu sustained simple injuries as none of them were proved as grievous injury. He further submitted that no fracture was found and it was admitted by PW-14 that no record is available to establish that these injured have suffered pain over 20 days or more. He further referred the statement of PW-15, Investigating Officer to submit that sticks were recovered from present appellant and a cross-case was registered against complainant party as well. He further submitted that from complainant party Rajaram who later died was also implicated by police in cross case registered by appellant accused party and firearm was recovered from him. He submits that one of the appellant Gangaram also sustained gunshot injury, therefore, it was open and free fight but complainant party was aggressor in the matter. He further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to notice the discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses and after ignoring these material contradictions convicted present appellants. He further submitted that both appellants were on bail during trial
(3 of 5) [SOSA-724/2023]
and they never misused the liberty of bail. He further submitted that appeal in cross case was filed against order of acquittal and this Court has issued notice to opposite party. At last, he submitted that disposal of appeal will take its own time. So, they be granted the benefit of bail.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submits that after registration of F.I.R. by present complainant just to create defence, a cross case was registered by present appellants. He further submitted that there was no firearm with Rajaram and without any basis police has filed charge-sheet but learned trial court after considering the material available on record, has acquitted all persons belonging to complainant party from the said cross case. He further submitted that apart from Gangaram, two appellants Mahendra and Siyaram were key accused who participated in committing injuries upon three injured from firearm. He further submits that all three injured sustained life threatning injuries and same were proved by PW-14. He further submitted that appellants were guilty of serious offence, therefore, they are not entitled for suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
A perusal of record indicated that on the basis of oral statement of PW-1 F.I.R. No. 174/2017 was registered on 14.11.2017, though, this oral statement was recorded on 13.11.2017 and the incident was of 12.11.2017. The documents relating to cross case which were exhibited in defence also indicated that on complaint of one of present appellants,
(4 of 5) [SOSA-724/2023]
Mahendra F.I.R. No. 175/2017 was registered on 14.11.2017 and charge-sheet was filed against Rajaram, Bablu @ Prithiviraj, Sheeshram & Bhagwan. After trial in cross case, acquittal order was passed by learned trial court.
The documents relating to revenue suit between Bhagwan and Ors. Vs. Sheeshram and Ors. were also filed for perusal. Present appellants were on bail during trial and sticks were recovered from present appellants. As per PW-15 injured Sheeshram, Bhagwan and Prithviraj @ Bablu sustained grievous and life threatning injuries.
At this stage, it is not possible for this Court to opine on merits and demerits of the deposition of prosecution, or defence, but in totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view it is appropriate that appellants can be granted the benefit of bail. The application for suspension of sentence of accused- Mahendra Son Of Raghuwar & Siyaram Son Of Raghuwar are allowed and sentence is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that they would execute 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:-
[SOSA-724/2023]
(5 of 5)
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
Misc. Application stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /20(sosa)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to a suspension of sentence while their criminal appeal is pending.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Son Of Raghuwar
Siyaram Son Of Raghuwar
State Of Rajasthan
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
