Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Champa Lal vs State on 18 September, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 536/2021
Champa Lal S/o Sh. Mangi Lal, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste
Suthar, R/o Village Madari, Police Station Ahore, District Jalore.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Jalore). (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 18/09/2021 Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.
The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No.60/2018 (CIS No.60/2018):
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I.
Imprisonment
Section 376/511 5 Years S.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 Months' S.I.
IPC
Section 380 IPC 1 Year's S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Month's S.I.
(Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 08:56:29 PM)
(2 of 5) [SOSA-536/2021]
Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the
applicant-appellant has preferred the instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
As per the reply preferred by the respondent, the appellant has undergone custodial period of nearly 6 years and 4 months till date.
The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution case, Smt. Pankhi Devi, aged above 60 years, expired in the night of 12.09.2015. The family members cremated the dead body without informing the police. However, Shri Sakha Ram (PW-3), husband of the deceased, lodged a written report (Ex.P/3) to the SHO, Police Station Ahore on 13.09.2015 at 11.00 am. alleging that after the last rites of his wife had been performed, on opening the almirah lying in the room, they realized that someone had stolen away a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a golden bangle from the almirah. Some blood was also seen lying on the bedding.
On the basis of this report, an FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Ahore for the offence under Section 380 IPC. On the next day i.e. on 14.09.2015, Sohanlal (PW-4), brother of the first informant, filed another application to the SHO, Police Station Ahore alleging that 'Teeya Baithak' pursuant to death of his sister- in-law, was going on and during that meeting, Champa Lal, who is related to them, came there and confessed that he had slept in the house of the informant on 12.09.2015. He lost his senses on seeing his own aunt, the deceased Pankhi Devi and tried to rape her. The lady resisted on which, Champa Lal allegedly strangulated her. He then stole the valuables from the almirah and went away. (Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 08:56:29 PM)
(3 of 5) [SOSA-536/2021] On the basis of this report, the SHO added the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 and 302 IPC in the case. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record.
Suffice it to say that there are significant loopholes in the prosecution case. The prosecution has tried to portray through the evidence of Jetharam (PW-15) son of the deceased that he and his father had gone for the carpentry work in the village Aalasan. His mother was all alone in the house. Thus, he requested his cousin Champa Lal to sleep in the house for giving company to his mother Pankhi Devi. He called Champa Lal and asked whether he had gone there to sleep who replied that he would be going later. Thereafter, he got a call from his brother Govind that their mother was lying dead in the kitchen. Jethalal and his father immediately went to their village and saw the dead body of Pankhi Devi lying there. Champa Lal was also present there and explained that the lady was collecting some articles from the kitchen and suddenly fell down and that she might have suffered a haemorrhage. On the suggestion of Champa Lal, they cremated the body without informing the police. However, we find that this allegation of Jetharam is dubitable because had the events occurred in this manner then, there was no reason to omit these facts in the FIR. There is no evidence to show that the death of Smt. Pankhi Devi was homicidal because the dead body was cremated by the family members without informing the police or without getting postmortem conducted. There is no reference to existence of injuries on the body of Pankhi in the FIR (Ex.P/3). (Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 08:56:29 PM)
(4 of 5) [SOSA-536/2021] In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future.
In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore, vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 in Sessions Case No.60/2018 (CIS No.60/2018) against the appellant- applicant Champa Lal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he 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 his appearance in this court on 20.10.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.(Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 08:56:29 PM)
(5 of 5) [SOSA-536/2021] The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
29-Tikam/-
(Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 08:56:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)