High Court bench dismissed the second application for suspension of sentence. The court held that after considering the totality of facts and the gravity of the brutal murder offence, it was not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 737/2023
Pradeep S/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Sukartal, Bhopan, District Mujaffarnagar (Up) (At Present Lodged At District Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Lal Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Chapparwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
07/11/2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any eye witness of the incident to prove the charge that the appellant-applicant has committed murder of the deceased on the intervening night of 26th and 27th March, 2014. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has further submitted that trial court has also erred in placing reliance on the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW-4) and Naku Meena (PW-5) to give a finding that as per the said witnesses, the appellant-applicant was last seen with the deceased. It is also
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB]
[SOSA-737/2023]
(2 of 3)
submitted that the said witnesses are not reliable as it is impossible for them to identify the appellant-applicant because numbers of drivers and attendants used to visit the hotel/dhaba where the incident took place.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact that apart from the deceased and the appellant-applicant, several other truck drivers and attendants were there on the dhaba, where the incident took place.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that recovery of the tyre lever at the instance of the appellantapplicant is also doubtful. It is further submitted that the said recovery was affected after around one and half month and that too from an open place. It is also submitted that the missing mobile phones of the deceased were also not recovered by the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant is in custody from last more than 9 years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus, prayed the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial court may be suspended.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant second application for suspension of sentence and argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant-applicant by producing cogent and reliable evidence.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that witnesses Shyam Singh (PW-4) and Naku Meena (PW-5) have identified the appellant-applicant, who was in the company of deceased on the
[2023:RJ-JD:38287-DB]
[SOSA-737/2023]
(3 of 3)
day of incident. It is further submitted that the owner of the transport company namely Kalpesh (PW-8) has also identified the appellant-applicant and verified that he accompanied the deceased and was with him on the day of incident.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is case of brutal murder and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial court is not liable to be suspended.
Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the trial court.
Hence, this second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
30-Arun/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second application for suspension of sentence merits consideration given the prosecution evidence and gravity of the offence.
Pradeep S/o Shri Pritam Singh
State Of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
MUNNURI LAXMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
