Allowed

Kassu @ Keshav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC26 Feb 2024SOSA/211/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a suspension of sentence application by a life convict under trial. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding long-serving convicts with pending appeals, the court suspended execution and granted bail subject to trial court satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence allowed; execution of sentence suspended; prisoner admitted to bail subject to trial court satisfaction and appearance date.

Kassu @ Keshav Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9511-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

¶4

211/2016

¶5

¶6

D. B. Criminal Appeal No.869/2015

¶7

Kassu @ Keshav s/o Kajod, aged 35 years, Resident of Village Ram Sagar Tan Badoli, P.S. Sadar Dausa, District Dausa. (At present confined in District Jail, Dausa)

¶8

----Appellants/Accused.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Lal Meena. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy.G.A.

¶13

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

¶14

Order

¶15

26/02/2024

¶16

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

¶17

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Counsel has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that applicantaccused was in judicial custody during the trial and also presently confined in District Jail, Dausa. Counsel submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the applicant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel

[2024:RJ-JP:9511-DB]

[SOSA-211/2016]

(2 of 4)

appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that complainant Kanchan Lal in the FIR has leveled the allegation of causing head injury on the person of deceased against accused-Kallu. However, in his Court statement recorded during trial as PW1, he has leveled the allegation of causing head injury to the deceased on the applicant-accused. Counsel further submits that there is improvement in the version of the complainant who is also an eyewitness of the alleged incident. Counsel further submits that the applicant has already served the sentence for a period of more than ten years and ten months and appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, therefore, he prayed that sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet Raut Vs.

¶24

State of GNCT Delhi (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary

¶25

No.(s). 22968/2020 which is held as under:-

¶26

“The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶27

The appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court is pending. An application was moved by the petitioner before the High Court for suspension of sentence which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

We are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone sentence of 7 years and 4 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no likelihood of the appeal being decided soon.

¶29

The learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:9511-DB]

[SOSA-211/2016]

2, which was accepted by the trial court shows that the petitioner has committed a grave offence under Section 302. He requested this Court to permit the petitioner to renew his application for suspension of sentence after some time or direct the appeal to be heard.

¶34

We are not inclined to give any direction to the High Court to dispose of the appeal out of turn.

¶35

Taken into account the fact that the petitioner has undergone sentence of more than 7 years, we deem it fit and proper to grant his prayer for suspension of sentence.

¶36

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶37

The special leave petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

¶38

Counsel for the applicant further relied upon the following

¶39

judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

¶40

“1. Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.308/2022), decided on 25.02.2022.

¶41

Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) NO.1049/2024 decided on 02.02.2024.”

¶42

Learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶43

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

¶44

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, improvement made in the statement of complainant-PW1, ten years and ten months sentence already served by the applicantaccused and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:9511-DB]

[SOSA-211/2016]

near future, we deem it just and proper to allow the present application for suspension of sentence.

¶49

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 applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the applicant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 19.04.2024 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance.

¶50

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶51

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶52

Tushar/30

Kassu @ Keshav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kassu @ Keshav v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Anil S/O Shri Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwarlal S/O Shri Chhitarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaptan Son of Bharat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhure S/O Shammi Vs State of Rajasthan

Tochya @ Suraj Son of Hiralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Singh Son of Shri Ram Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan