Allowed

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024SOSA/1560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the substantive sentence of two appellants convicted under Sections 302, 323, and 341 IPC during the pendency of their appeals and granted bail, directing them to execute a bond and appear before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; applicants released on bail contingent upon execution of a personal bond in Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 5) [SOSA-1253/2023]

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:5558-DB]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1253/2023

¶5

Mukh Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dhansiai PS Pallu Dist. Hanumangarh At Present Lodged in Central Jail Bikaner

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1560/2023

¶12

Om Prakash S/o Shri Akharam, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhansia, P.S. Pallu, Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ramawtar Singh.
	Mr. Ganga Ram.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, P.P.
	Mr. Rakesh Matoria.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶19

Order

¶20

02/02/2024

¶21

The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by

[2024:RJ-JD:5558-DB]

[SOSA-1253/2023]

(2 of 5)

the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Session Case No.41/2018:

¶26

Offence	Sentence	Fine
302/34 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.25,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s additional imprisonment.
323/34 IPC	Three Months’ Simple imprisonment	Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo Seven days’ additional imprisonment.
341 IPC		Rs.200/- and in default of which to further undergo two days’ simple imprisonment.

¶27

The appellants-applicants have preferred the applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeals and for release on bail.

¶28

It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that from bare look at the postmortem report, it is apparent that present is a case of over implication, wherein, though the allegation is that coaccused Prem Kumar gave a lathi blow on the head of deceased Moman Ram resulting in his falling down and thereafter, the allegations have been made against the applicants - Om Prakash & Mukh Ram also of giving beating to him. However, the postmortem report (Exhibit-19) along with the statement of Dr. Jai Prakash (PW-15), who conducted the postmortem, clearly indicates that there was swelling on the left frontal region, parietal region, or left orbite region and on conducting the postmortem he found epidural, subdural, subarachnoid hemmorhage and multiple brain parenchymal injuries, which clearly shows that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased.

[2024:RJ-JD:5558-DB]

[SOSA-1253/2023]

(3 of 5)

Further, in the postmortem report, there are no other injuries found on the entire body of the deceased except for the scratch marks for which the allegations are that after he fell down, he was dragged to the house nearby.

¶33

Further submissions have been made that the allegations regarding dragging the deceased to the house of Om Prakash are incorrect, inasmuch as, the property is not owned by him. 6. Further submissions were made that the applicants were on bail during pendency of the trial and that the said bail has not been misused by them, the hearing of the appeals is likely to take sufficiently long time and, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the trial court has clearly found that all the accused had attacked Moman Ram, which led to the injuries and consequential death.

¶35

Further submissions have been made that three Lathis have been recovered at the instance of the three accused and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants were not involved in the offence and, therefore, the applications deserve dismissal.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The postmortem report (Exhibit-19) indicates head injury only and there are no other injuries on the body of the deceased except for the scratch marks on his back. The allegation in the FIR are specifically against Prem Kumar of having given Lathi blow on the head of the deceased and though allegations are also against

[2024:RJ-JD:5558-DB]

[SOSA-1253/2023]

(4 of 5)

the applicants of having given beating to the deceased, which are general in nature. However, the postmortem report, as indicated hereinbefore, shows epidural, subdural, subarachnoid hemmorhage and multiple brain parenchymal injuries, which may be a result of the injuries attributed to Prem Kumar. Further it is not disputed that during pendency of the trial, the applicants were on bail.

¶41

In the circumstances of the case, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants- Mukh Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram & Om Prakash S/o Shri Akharam, during the pendency of the appeals.

¶42

Accordingly, instant applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Session Case No.41/2018 against the appellants-applicants- Mukh Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram & Om Prakash S/o Shri Akharam, vide judgment dated 14.07.2023 shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 04.03.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeals on the conditions indicated below:

¶43

That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeals are decided.

¶44

That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:5558-DB]

[SOSA-1253/2023]

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶49

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

¶50

The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accusedapplicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶51

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶52

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶53

6-7-pradeep/-

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Durga Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mitha Lal Bunkar Vs Union of India

Prem Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Das Vaishnav and Ors. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Bhaktiraj Lodha Vs Bhavika

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan