Dismissed

Jai Singh @ Reshu S/O Brahmanand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Dec 2024SOSA/1780/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed suspension of sentence applications from accused applicants in murder and attempt to murder cases. The bench rejected the argument regarding procedural defects and acquitted status in a lesser charge, noting strong evidence including weapon recovery and eyewitness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence dismissed. Copies of the order placed in connected files.

Jai Singh @ Reshu S/O Brahmanand Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:52041-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1944/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.375/2024

¶6

Dharamraj Son of Bajranglal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Unda, Police Station Baran Sadar, District Baran, (Raj.) (At Present Is Confined In District Jail, Baran)

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1780/2024

¶13

¶14

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.338/2024

¶15

Jai Singh @ Reshu S/o Brahmanand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Unda P.S. Baran Sadar District Baran (Presently At District Jail Baran)

¶16

----Applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Complainant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh For State : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order

¶22

18/12/2024

¶23

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for

¶24

suspension of sentence.

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:52041-DB]

¶26

[SOSA-1944/2024]

¶27

(2 of 3)

¶28

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicants that the incident took place on 31.07.2018. Two FIRs were lodged, one is under Section 307 I.P.C. and the other one is under Section 302 I.P.C. In the trial pertaining to offence under Section 307 I.P.C., applicants have been acquitted. It is further contended that PW-1, who is the solitary eye-witness was not present at the place of occurrence, as there were no marks of blood on her clothes. It is also contended that there is no evidence or report to the effect that the shells which have been recovered were fired from the pistol recovered from applicant-Jai Singh. It is contended that accused have remained in custody for a period of six years and five months.

¶30

Learned Additional Govt. Advocate as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant have opposed the present applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended that 4 criminal cases have been lodged against the applicants. The applicants earlier also were involved in offence under Section 307 I.P.C. in the year 2015 and since the complainant party were the witnesses, they again attacked the complainant side on 31.07.2018 and when the injured was being shifted to the hospital, they came to the house of the complainant and committed the murder of the deceased. It is further contended that PW-1 who is the solitary eye-witness and was present at the time of occurrence, has narrated the incident.

¶31

We have considered the contentions.

¶32

[2024:RJ-JP:52041-DB]

¶33

[SOSA-1944/2024]

¶34

(3 of 3)

¶35

Considering the statement of PW-1; as also the fact of recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at the instance of Dharam Raj and Katta & serviceable pistol at the instance of Jai Singh; also taking note of the fact that the pistol was serviceable and 9 mm shell was the one which could be fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of Jai Singh; knife which was recovered at the instance of Dharam Raj was found stained with human blood and as also the fact that deceased who was 50 years old has sustained as many as 15 stab wounds, we are not inclined to entertain these applications for suspension of sentence and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶36

A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶37

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶38

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶39

GARIMA-DAKSH/82-83

Jai Singh @ Reshu S/O Brahmanand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh @ Reshu S/O Brahmanand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawal Kishore Sharma S/O Nand Lal Sharma Vs Union of India

Rajendra Kumar S/O Rohitashw Gurjar Vs Union of India

Indraj S/O Shri Dharampal @ Dharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Asha Devi W/O Late Nanu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar S/O Shri Heera Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Son of Deewan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan