Allowed

Schin @ Liliya S/O Mulchand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Dec 2024SOSA/1706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application, the Rajasthan High Court scaled down the sentence imposed under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court allowed the suspension, citing the admitted delay in the Medical Legal Report and the lack of repeated blows suggesting an absence of murderous intention. A bond of Rs. 1,00,000 was directed with conditions for future appearance.

What did the court decide?

The subject of sentence (ten years simple imprisonment and fine) awarded to the accused in Sessions Case No.231/2017 shall remain suspended pending the disposal of the appeal upon furnishing a bond of

Schin @ Liliya S/O Mulchand Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:51801]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1706/2024 IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2574/2024

¶4

Schin @ Liliya S/o Mulchand, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Govali Police Station Mandrela District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu )

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶8

Smt. Raju Devi W/o Tarachand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Govali Police Station Mandrela District Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Gunjan Sharma &
	Mr. Aamir Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶12

Order

¶13

17/12/2024

¶14

The accused-applicant has preferred the present application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 against the judgment dated 17.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Session Case No.231/2017 CIS No.234/2017, whereby the accused-applicant was convicted for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 & 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was sentenced to undergo ten(10) years simple imprisonment and fine.

[2024:RJ-JP:51801]

[SOSA-1706/2024]

(2 of 4)

Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accusedapplicant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in any manner. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident is of 17.05.2017 and F.I.R. was lodged on the very same day, however, the Medico Legal Report (in short 'MLR') Ex.p-5, as regards the injuries of the injuredcomplainant party, was prepared on 01.06.2017 that is after about fourteen (14) days of the said incident. Counsel further submits that after the alleged incident, the injured-complainant instead of getting treatment from local dispensary/hospital, went at a place that is Hisar, which is about one hundred forty nine (149) kilometers away and got the treatment. Counsel further submits that as regards the hospital where the injured-complainant is said to have taken the treatment, there are allegations against that hospital of preparing forged medical documents and in that regard, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was also filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Counsel further submits that the allegations levelled against the present accusedapplicant is of causing only single injury to the injuredcomplainant and there is no repeatation. In absence of repeatation, it cannot be said that the accused-applicant was having any intention of causing such injury which may lead to death, if there would have been such intention then he had made repeated blows. Counsel further submits that as per MLR(Ex.p-5), it is not clear that with what weapon the injury has been caused to the injured. Counsel further submits that the Medical Jurist, who

[2024:RJ-JP:51801]

[SOSA-1706/2024]

(3 of 4)

has given the opinion with regard to the injury, has not been produced for evidence before the learned trial Court.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the accused-applicant and submits that the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 307 IPC after carefully appreciation of the evidence led before it.

¶24

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-applicant and more particularly the fact that the allegations levelled against the accused-applicant is of inflicting single injury to the injured and in absence of repeated blows, it would be very difficult to get the intention of the accusedapplicant so as to convict him for offence under Section 307 IPC. 5. The criminal appeal has already been admitted for hearing and the same may take considerable time to conclude, therefore, this Court, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by counsel for the accused-applicant, feels that this is a fit case to suspend the sentence of the accused-applicant.

¶25

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, namely, Schin @ Liliya S/o Mulchand in Sessions Case No.231/2017 CIS No.234/2017 shall remain suspended provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before the Registrar (Judicial) on 17.01.2025 and further

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:51801]

[SOSA-1706/2024]

on subsequent date(s) as and when called upon to do so till the

¶30

disposal of the appeal on the conditions as follows:-

¶31

i) After release of the accused appellant, he shall not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. ii) He will appear before the trial Court in the month of December of every year till the appeal is decided. iii) If the appellant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as the counsel in the High Court. iv). Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶32

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court through e-

¶33

mail.

¶34

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶35

ARTI SHARMA /123

Schin @ Liliya S/O Mulchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Schin @ Liliya S/O Mulchand 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

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu S/O Dhanna @ Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinay Pandey Son of Gautam Pandey, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shubham Lakhan S/O Late Shri Lalit Lakhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep P.R. Son of Ravindra Vs Jaikrishanan T.K. Son of Raghwan