Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prem Kumar @ Prem Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 13 December, 2017
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Cr. Misc. (S.O.S.) Appl. No.873/2016
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 765 / 2016
Prem Kumar @ Prem Singh Son of Khumaram, by caste Jat,
resident of Chelasi, Police Station Sadar, Sikar (Raj.)
(At present accused-petitioner confined in district Jail, Sikar)
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Shri Sumer Singh For Respondent(s) : Shri R.S. Raghav, P.P. Shri Sanjay Kedar _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Order 13/12/2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.
This application for suspension of sentence has been filed on behalf of accused-appellant Prem Kumar @ Prem Singh. Apart from merits of the case, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that accused-appellant before, at the time of incident and thereafter, has been having active disease of schizophrenia. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of Dr. Mahesh Kumar (DW1), the Psychiatrist in S.K. Hospital, Sikar, who had (2 of 4) [SOSA-873/2016] attended the appellant immediately after incident, which took place on 4.12.2011. This witness has stated that according to the opinion of the medical board dated 16.3.2012, accused-appellant was suffering from schizophrenia and thereafter again another Medical Board opined the same in their report dated 4.6.2012. His statement has been recorded by learned trial court on 2.5.2012 and 25.7.2012. All the aforementioned opinions of the Medical Board were on record as Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 and the statement of DW1 as Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Ghansham Das Natani (DW3), who was Junior Specialist in Psychiatric in S.K. Hospital, Sikar. He has stated that on 7.12.2011, he was called to examine the accused-appellant, who was admitted in Male Medical Ward in Government Shri Kalyan Hospital on 4.12.2011. He made noting/observation in the bed head ticket (Ex.D12) dated 7.12.2012 and again examined the accused-appellant on 9.12.2012, according to which, his behaviour was quite abnormal. He was not talking much and was making different faces. His judgement and calculation was very poor. He had been a patient of acute psychiatric reaction. Learned counsel submitted that trial of the accused-appellant could not have proceeded because the medical board had not declared him fully fit in their opinion dated 4.6.2012 and merely stated that though he was a patient of schizophrenia, who was apparently in remission stage, but he required continuous treatment to remain in normal state. Learned counsel submitted that the trial in the case thus stood vitiated for the reason that the accused-appellant was not in a position to fully understand the implications thereof.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-873/2016] Even during confinement in jail, the accused had attempted to commit suicide and was subjected to medical examination where he was opined to be suffering from schizophrenia. This Court also by order dated 3.8.2017 directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner to shift the appellant to Central Jail at Jaipur for evaluation of his condition in Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur. The opinion of the medical board dated 5.10.2017 is on record, according to which the appellant is suffering from Psychosis NOS currently stable on medications. Learned counsel argued that if the appellant is not granted regular treatment, his condition may again deteriorate. He has referred to the provisions of Section 330 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the first cousin of the appellant Shri Shubh Karan Bhuria S/o Shri Tulsaram Bhuria has given an undertaking on an affidavit that he shall take care of the appellant for his regular maintenance and psychiatric treatment and medication and prevent him from doing any injury to himself or to any other person.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-appellant does not deserve the indulgence of suspension of sentence and his application be therefore dismissed.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the undertaking furnished by the cousin of the accused-appellant on record, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant till disposal of the appeal.
(4 of 4) [SOSA-873/2016] It is therefore ordered that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused appellant Prem Kumar @ Prem Singh S/o Khumaram in Sessions Case No.63/2013 shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court on 15.01.2018 and whenever called upon to do so.
Accordingly the application for suspension of sentence is disposed off.
(KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA)J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. RS/454