Allowed

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2024SOSA/1615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to suspend the life sentence of a petitioner convicted of murder. The court relied on a prior order suspending a co-accused's sentence in the same incident, noting similar factual circumstances despite differences in custody served.

What did the court decide?

The sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.06.2023, is suspended pending disposal of the appeal, subject to execution of a personal bond and appearance in court.

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1615/2023

¶4

Suresh S/o Partha, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Kanpur Bank Lane, Pratap Nagar P.s., Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

Reserved on 22/04/2024 Pronounced on 25/04/2024

¶13

The present application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence has been filed seeking suspension of the sentence, awarded to the applicant-appellant vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 51/2018, whereby while convicting the applicantappellant for the offences under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 397/34 of IPC, the applicant-appellant was ordered to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of which, the applicant-appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 05 months.

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶16

[SOSA-1615/2023]

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that as per the prosecution story, only silver bangles were recovered at the instance of the applicant-appellant, however the prosecution failed to prove that the said bangles belonged to the deceased, thus there was no recovery of any kind of blood stained article from the applicant-appellant, nor it has come on record that the applicant-appellant caused injury to the deceased; further, no documentary evidence of alleged recovery has been produced by the prosecution.

¶18

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is not supported by any sound evidence and neither the last seen theory has been proved nor any foot mould of the applicant-appellant was collected from the place of alleged incident.

¶19

2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the sentence awarded to similarly situated co-accused Gopal, vide the same impugned judgment, has already been suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1114/2023 (Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan).

¶20

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the suspension of sentence application, submitted that the applicant-appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on record before it. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the present application for suspension of sentence ought not to be entertained by this Court.

¶21

(3 of 6)

¶22

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶23

[SOSA-1615/2023]

¶24

3.1. It was further submitted that looking into the grave nature of the offences, no interference by this Court is warranted; in furtherance, as per the jail report sent by the Central Jail, Udaipur, the applicant-appellant has served a sentence of 03 years 05 months and 12 days, and thus, the applicant-appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶26

This Court is conscious of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1114/2023 (Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan), which was also pertaining to suspension of sentence awarded vide the same impugned judgment. The relevant portion of the said order dated 28.11.2023, whereby the co-accused of the same incident in question has been granted the indulgence of suspension of sentence, is reproduced as hereunder:

¶27

“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. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that as per the prosecution story, only silver bangles were recovered at the instance of the appellantapplicant, however, the prosecution has failed to prove before the trial court that those silver bangles belong to the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that in the absence of identification of the silver bangles by the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that no incriminatory evidence is available on record.

¶28

Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence,

¶29

(4 of 6)

¶30

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶31

[SOSA-1615/2023]

¶32

however, the said evidence pertaining to the appellantapplicant is so weak that no prudent person can rely on the same. It is submitted that appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial court may be suspended.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this application for suspension of sentence.

¶34

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the fact that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellantapplicant .”

¶35

This Court further finds that only one silver bangle ( kada ) was recovered from the applicant-appellant and from a bare perusal of the record, there does not exist much difference in the conduct of the applicant-appellant from that of the co-accused Gopal, who has been granted indulgence of suspension of sentence vide the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2023 in the factual matrix of the present case, and that, the suspension of sentence application of the said Gopal was also filed against the same impugned judgment of conviction.

¶36

6.1. This Court also finds that the custody period of the coaccused Gopal was 09 months 14 days, as per the Jail Report, sent by the Central Jail, Udaipur, whereas the present applicantappellant’s has already served the sentence of 03 years 05 months 12 days i.e. more than co-accused Gopal whose sentence has already been suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

¶37

[SOSA-1615/2023]

¶38

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the co-accused in this case has already been granted indulgence of suspension of sentence, and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant in this case.

¶41

Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur vide judgment dated 27.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.51/2018 against appellant-applicant Suresh S/o Partha shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, 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 his appearance in this Court on 28.05.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶42

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

¶43

That if the 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.

¶44

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

¶45

(6 of 6)

¶46

[2024:RJ-JD:17497-DB]

¶47

[SOSA-1615/2023]

¶48

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

¶49

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶50

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶51

SKant/-

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Devilal @ Devida and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Ashish Saxena

Pr. C.I.T.Udaipur Vs M/S Tirupati Microtech Pvt.Ltd.

Kailash @ Pintu Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdha Vs State of Rajasthan