Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Balu Ram Gurjar vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 29 March, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B.CR.MISC.APPLICATION FOR SOS NO.284/2013. IN D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.379/2011. Balu Ram Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order:- March 29, 2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Shri Shyam Bihari Gautam and Shri Pankaj Gupta for the applicant-appellant. Smt.Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor.
**** This application has been filed by accused-applicant/appellant Balu Ram Gurjar seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk vide judgment dated 24/3/2011convicting him u/Ss.302 & 307 IPC. He is serving sentence of life imprisonment for offence u/S.302 IPC and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for offence u/S.307 IPC, in District Jail, Tonk.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant/appellant has argued that Sheonarayan (PW5) and Surajmal (PW6) father & brother of deceased-Paras, respectively, who claimed to be eye-witnesses, did not assert in their statements recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. the active role of the accused-appellant in the alleged crime, which fact has been proved from the statement of Mukesh Choudhary (PW7) Investigation Officer. Other eye-witnesses namely; Smt.Mangi Devi (PW1) and Ramlal (PW3) have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The appellant was not on bail during trial. Therefore, sentence of the accused appellant may be suspended.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and argued that the learned trial court has rightly based conviction of the appellant relying on the testimony of two eye-witnesses namely; Sheonarayan (PW5) and Surajmal (PW6). In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Panchayatnama (Exh.P.2) prepared by the investigation officer in witness of Sheonarayan (PW5) and Surajmal (PW6) mentioning that deceased-Paras was pushed into Well by the appellant. Parcha Bayan has been proved by Smt.Mangi Devi (PW1), mother of the appellant despite her turning hostile. But the fact that mother herself has lodged report with the police, is a significant fact, which has been given weightage by the trial court in convicting the appellant.
Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the fact that so far appellant has served out only three years of sentence, we are not inclined to suspend his sentence. However, so soon appellant completes period of five years in jail, he would be entitled to again apply for suspension of sentence.
With that liberty, this application for suspension of sentence u/S.389 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(NISHA GUPTA), J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Anil/110-supp.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed Anil Kumar Goyal Sr.P.A. Cum J