Ramphool Son of Devilal Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:21116]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 881/2025

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1120/2025

¶6

Ramphool Son Of Devilal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Badgav, Police Station Dablana District Bundi (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail Bundi)

¶7

Prembai W/o Ramphool, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Badgav, Police Station Dablana District Bundi (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail Bundi)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 817/2025

¶14

In

¶15

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1002/2025

¶16

Devilal S/o Shri Bhaktawar, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Badgaon Police Station Dablana District Bundi (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhawna Sharma Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

[2025:RJ-JP:21116]

[SOSA-881/2025]

(2 of 6)

19/05/2025

These applications for suspension of sentence are preferred by appellants- Ramphool Son Of Devilal, Prembai W/o Ramphool and Devilal S/o Shri Bhaktawar in pending appeals filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2025 in Sessions Case (CIS) No.190/2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Section 306/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶29

Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by the police. He/She further submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. He/She further submitted that almost all prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He/She also submitted that husband of deceased was examined as PW-1 and he has turned hostile. He/She further submitted that on the basis of Parchabayan of deceased and further statement before the Judicial Magistrate, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Sasur, Jeth and Jethani) were arrayed as an accused which is quite abnormal. He/She referred prosecution story and submitted that the deceased herself poured kerosene and put fire to herself which clearly shows that the mental condition of victim was disturbing.

¶30

He/She submitted that the deceased was suffering from mental disorder and her behaviour was aggressive and this aggression has resulted into present incident. He/She further submitted that in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC it is necessary that appellants accused have instigated the deceased to

[2025:RJ-JP:21116]

[SOSA-881/2025]

(3 of 6)

commit suicide. He/She further submitted that it is duty of prosecution to establish active role of appellant(s) instigation and encouragement of suicide but in the instant case no such evidence is available on record. He/She further referred Section 107 IPC and submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence about instigation, conspiracy or any act which led to direct committal of suicide by deceased. He/She further submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration was not examined before the trial court and so the policeman, who recorded the parchabayan of deceased was examined by the prosecution. He/She further submitted that even the doctor, who gave certificate of fitnesswas not examined by the prosecution. He/She further referred the investigation and evidence on record and submitted that the case under Section 306 IPC is not made out but appellants were convicted by learned trial court without any material on record.

¶35

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. He also submitted that complainant was informed about filing of appeal and same is taken on record.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On the basis of Parchabayan Ex.P-15 recorded on 01.10.2016, FIR No.304/2016 under Section 309 IPC was registered at P.S. Dablana, Bundi. During investigation, injured Indra Bai has expired who named Ramphool, Prem Bai and Devi Lal for reasons behind her suicide. The police has filed a chargesheet against all the three appellants under Section 306/34 IPC.

[2025:RJ-JP:21116]

[SOSA-881/2025]

(4 of 6)

After framing charge, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited Ex.D1 in defence. The appellants were convicted under Sections 306/34 IPC and sentenced each of appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 years with fine of ₹2,000/-.

¶41

In a matter pertains to Section 306 IPC very recently in case of Prakash and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 1020, Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring judgment in case of S.S.Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2020) 12 SCC 190, Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 960, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh 2001 INSC 515 has considered the ingredients necessary to attract provision under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. Very recently in case of Irfan @ Naka Vs. State of U.P. 2023 INSC 758=2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered inconsistencies in recording dying declaration, physical condition of deceased and recording of declaration.

¶42

Herein this case, we have considered material on record particularly Ex.P-17, dying declaration and relied by learned trial court. The Parchabayan was exhibited as Ex.P-15 and statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was exhibited as Ex.D1.

¶43

All these appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. One of the appellant is more than 75 years of age and it is not possible to express any opinion on merits of the case but having considered the entirety of facts and

[SOSA-881/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:21116]

(5 of 6)

circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to allow SOS application.

¶48

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The applications under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Ramphool Son Of

¶49

Devilal, Prembai W/o Ramphool and Devilal S/o Shri Bhaktawar is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 29.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶50

After release of appellant on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

¶51

That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶52

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶53