Allowed

Munna @ Sajid S/O Shri Bhoora Pahalwan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2023SOSA/809/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, hearing an application for suspension of sentence, suspended the sentences awarded in a conviction for robbery and granted bail to the appellant to appear during the pendency of the appeal against the trial court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; appellant released on bail via personal bond with sureties to appear during appeal pendency.

Munna @ Sajid S/O Shri Bhoora Pahalwan Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.

¶3

809/2020

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 716/2019

¶6

Munna @ Sajid S/o Shri Bhoora Pahalwan, R/o Lal Masjid Mohalla Ps Rampur Dist. Rampur (Up) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.P. Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, GA-cum AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶13

04/01/2023

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the judgment impugned dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 394 IPC and has been sentenced to maximum ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.50,000/-

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. No cogent evidence has been produced to ascertain the fact that it was the accused appellant who robbed the complainant since no endeavor has been made to get the identification done before the Executive or Judicial Magistrate. The recovery allegedly made from the appellant is nothing but a farce

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[SOSA-809/2020]

¶18

as neither the articles were identified by the proper persons nor the witness verified the recovery from the appellant. Although, it is mentioned that the appellant was kept veiled but no such endorsement is made on memos. He was earlier exposed before the public prior to making the identification parade. He was on bail during the trial. The matter pertains to the year 2008 and since 2008 to 2019. he has to face rigor of the trial and after judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2019, he is languishing in jail. He has been sentenced to suffer 10 years imprisonment for offence under Section 394 IPC out of which he has served five and a half year. The evidence recorded by the trial Court is required to be reappreciated again as being the first appellate court, the High Court is under an obligation to make a de novo appreciation of evidence.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant.

¶20

The accused-appellant is behind the bars and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time, therefore, considering the overall submissions and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

¶21

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota, vide judgment dated 29.01.2019 in Sessions Case No144/2018 against the appellant-applicant Munna @ Sajid S/o Shri Bhoora Pahalwan shall remain suspended till final disposal of

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SOSA-809/2020]

¶24

the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail 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 their appearance in this court on 08.02.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶25

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶26

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶27

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶28

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants were 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 applicants does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶29

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶30

PREETI VALECHA /10

Munna @ Sajid S/O Shri Bhoora Pahalwan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna @ Sajid S/O Shri Bhoora Pahalwan 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

Dalveer S/O Jagan B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Banti Son of Shri Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Prasad Sahu Son of Suwalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram @ Ravishankar S/O Shri Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivprakash @ Shivprasad Son of Shri Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul S/O Shri Vishamber @ Kalwa Vs State of Rajasthan