Allowed

Mahveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2023SOSA/935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a suspension of sentence application filed by an appellant convicted for offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court suspended the substantive sentence pending the disposal of the appeal, directing the execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence awarded by the trial court granted pending disposal of the appeal, subject to personal bond and sureties.

Mahveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38667-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 935/2023

¶4

Mahveer Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Dabariyani Kalla, P.S. Merta Road, District Nagaur

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Parbatsar)

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan,

¶9

Baksha Ram S/o Shri Adu Ram Meghwal, R/o Village Talanpur, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. P.S. Rathore Mr. J.K. Bhaiya For Respondent No.1 : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

08/11/2023

¶15

1. As per office report, notice upon the respondent No.2 has duly been served.

¶16

2. This suspension of sentence application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant-appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, PCOSO Act Cases No.2, Merta (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.71/2022 (53/2021) vide judgment dated 09.11.2022 The applicant-appellant has been sentenced as under :-

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[2023:RJ-JD:38667-DB]

¶19

[SOSA-935/2023]

¶20

Offence(s) U/S	Sentence	Fine (In Rs.)	Sentence (in default of payment of fine)
363 IPC	5 Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment	5000/-	1 Year’s Additional Imprisonment
3(1)(R)(S)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act	3 Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment	5000/-	1 Year’s Additional Imprisonment
376DA IPC	Live Imprisonment	1,00,000/-	NIL

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant-appellant vide impugned judgment. It is submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it can be assumed that the applicant-appellant had not sexually assaulted the victim. It is submitted that though the victim (PW-1) in her court statements has alleged that the applicant-appellant sexually assaulted her but Dr. Anita Kumari Jat (PW-8) in her court statements has specifically stated that as per her examination, the victim was not sexually assaulted on the day of the incident.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has further submitted that during the course of investigation, the police have collected the vaginal smear and swab of the victim, however, as per the FSL Report (Exhibit-P/18), semen could not be detected on the said articles.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has further submitted that as a matter of fact the applicant-appellant and the victim are known to each other and the applicant-appellant went

¶24

[2023:RJ-JD:38667-DB]

¶25

[SOSA-935/2023]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

to meet her on a vehicle on her call, however, when Peerbux (PW-4) objected regarding the said meeting, people gathered there and caught hold of the applicant-appellant along with the co-accused. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact though the applicant-appellant came to meet the victim and sat with her in a car but he had not sexually assaulted her.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the applicant-appellant is in custody from last more than 2½ years and hearing of the appeal filed by him is likely to take time. It is also submitted that the sentence of co-accused Kailash Jangid has already been suspended by this Court.

¶29

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the applicant-appellant for suspending his sentence. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties on suspension of sentence application. 9. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking into consideration the statements of (PW-8) Dr. Anita Kumari Jat and the FSL Report (Exhibit-P/18), we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

¶30

10. Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 09.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.71/2022 (53/2021) against applicant-appellant – Mahveer Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal filed by him, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[SOSA-935/2023]

¶33

[2023:RJ-JD:38667-DB]

¶34

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 11.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶35

(i) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶36

(ii) That if the applicant-appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶40

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶41

Abhishek Kumar S.No.74

Mahveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahveer Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanwar Lal Pandar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Satya Narayan @ Sattu

State of Rajasthan Vs Roopa Ram