Partly allowed

Smt. Lalita W/O Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2024SOSA/1851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of suspension of sentence applications in a traffic accident case. The application by the male appellant was dismissed due to medical evidence confirming injuries, while the application by the female appellant was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of accused-applicant-Lalita is suspended subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Smt. Lalita W/O Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50184-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2128/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.357/2024

¶6

Rajaram Son Of Chajuram, Resident Of Khohra Kalan Dhani Dadawadi P.s. Kolwa District Dausa Rajasthan (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Shyalawas, Dausa)

¶7

----Accused-Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1851/2024

¶13

¶14

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.357/2024

¶15

Smt. Lalita W/o Rajaram, Resident Of Kohara Kalan, Dhani Dadawani Ps Kolwa, District Dausa Rajasthan (At Present Accused Confined In Women Jail Jaipur )

¶16

----Accused-applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. For Complainant(s) : Mr. M.K. Kaushik

¶21

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

¶22

Order

¶23

05/12/2024

¶24

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:50184-DB]

¶26

[SOSA-2128/2024]

¶27

(2 of 3)

¶28

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicants that accused-applicants were on bail during trial. Accused/applicant-Rajaram has remained in custody for a period of one year. It is also contended that the deceased has not sustained any crush injuries contrary to what has been deposed by P.W-2 to P.W-5.

¶30

It is further contended that from the statement of P.W.1Doctor, it is revealed that deceased has not sustained crush injuries and that there were no tyre marks on the body of the deceased. It is also contended that the dispute took place on cleaning of garbage. Parties are related to each other. Disposal of appeal will take time.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the complainant-respondent have opposed these applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended that all the witnesses have stated before the Court below that the accused/applicantRajaram drove the car and hit the deceased, who was urinating at the corner of the road. It is also contended that there is specific evidence that accused/applicant-Lalita instigated the accused/applicant-Rajaram. It is further contended that the accused himself in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted the fact that his car hit the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries by falling.

¶32

We have considered the contentions.

¶33

Considering the postmortem report and the evidence of P.W.-2 to P.W-5, we are not inclined to entertain the Criminal Misc.

¶34

(3 of 3)

¶35

[2024:RJ-JP:50184-DB]

¶36

[SOSA-2128/2024]

¶37

Suspension of Sentence Application No.2128/2024 filed by accused/applicant-Rajaram.

¶38

Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.2128/2024 filed by accused/applicant-Rajaram is dismissed.

¶39

As far as, Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1851/2024 filed by accused/applicant-Lalita is concerned, she is a lady who is stated to be sitting with the accused/applicantRajaram at the time when he was driving the car, we deem it proper to allow the Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1851/2024 filed by accused/applicant-Lalita.

¶40

Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1851/2024 filed by accused/applicant-Lalita is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused applicant-Lalita in Sessions Case No.69/2020 shall remain suspended, if the accused-applicant-Lalita furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that she shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶41

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

¶42

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶43

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶44

LAKSHYA-DAKSH/53-54

Smt. Lalita W/O Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita W/O Rajaram 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

Indrapal Alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Navisher S/O Shri Gani Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Soyal W/O Kamlesh Khatik Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Prashasanik Sewa Parishad Vs Union of India

Shambhu Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shivam Solanki S/O Shri Chhotu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan