Allowed

Rameshwar Son of Shri Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2024SOSA/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a suspension of sentence application filed by appellants challenging a life imprisonment sentence. Considering contradictions in witness statements, the deceased's delayed death, and the appellants' prior bail status, the court suspended the sentence execution and admitted them to bail during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Execution of sentence suspended during pendency of appeal; appellants admitted to bail with conditions to appear on 15.04.2024.

Rameshwar Son of Shri Tejaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8927-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 175/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.37/2024

¶6

Rameshwar Son Of Shri Tejaram, Aged About 45 Years, Degeron Ki Dhani P. S Govindgarh District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶7

Moolchand Son Of Shri Jagdish, Degeron Ki Dhani P. S Govindgarh District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶8

Rajkumar @ Raju Son Of Begaram, Degeron Ki Dhani P. S Govindgarh District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Additional Government Advocate.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

21/02/2024

¶17

This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the applicants along with the appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the appellants has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that during the trial, the appellants were on bail and the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the appellants under Section 302 of IPC and they are in judicial custody at Central Jail, Jaipur. Counsel further submits that the applicants have been

[2024:RJ-JP:8927-DB]

[SOSA-175/2024]

(2 of 3)

falsely implicated in this matter and the incident took place on 30.07.2013 and the deceased died on 17.08.2013 during treatment. Counsel further submits that initially the police registered the FIR under Sections 323, 341 & 143 of IPC and after death of the deceased, Section 302 of IPC was also added. Counsel further submits that there are contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses and all the eye witnesses have stated that the deceased went with the police personnel to verify the disputed site where the applicants attacked on him, however, none of those police personnel was examined in this regard during trial. Counsel further submits that hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the applicants may be suspended and they be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) NO.1049/2024 decided on 02.02.2024.

¶24

Learned Additional Govt. Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that the complainant has duly been inform about filing of the present appeal, however, no one appeared on their behalf to oppose the application for suspension of sentence.

¶25

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the statements of so called eye witnesses as well as the fact that the applicants were on bail during trial and the deceased died

[2024:RJ-JP:8927-DB]

[SOSA-175/2024]

(3 of 3)

after 17 days of the alleged incident during treatment and the hearing of appeal may take long time, we deem it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application.

¶31

In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the applicants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the applicants be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before this Court on 15.04.2024 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance.

¶33

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶34

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶35

MG/80

Rameshwar Son of Shri Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Son of Shri Tejaram 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

Vikram Singh Son of Shri Tejsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Verma S/O Shri Bansidhar Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Maya Wd/O Late Shri Ramcharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Devi W/O Fakir Mandal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sher Singh S/O Nand Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Yadav Son of Motilal Vs State of Rajasthan