Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra @ Raju vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 604/2024
1. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Balram, Aged 33 Years, R/o Kotdi, P.s.
Chechat, Dist. Kota, (Raj.).
2. Shaitan Dhakad s/o Phoolchand, aged 43 years, r/o Laadpura,
P.S. Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
3. Ramnathi Bai w/o Balram, aged 53 years,r/o Kotdi, P.S.
Chechat, District Kota (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Begun, Dist. Chittorgarh and are
under process to Shift at Central Jail, Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order Reserved on 08/04/2025 Pronounced on 12/05/2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The applicants-appellants have preferred this application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., as awarded to them vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 62/2021 (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] (29/2016), whereby the applicants-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
302 of I.P.C. Life imprisonment One year's additional
with fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.50,000/- (each of
the applicants)
324 of I.P.C. Simple imprisonment Six months'
for three years with additional simple
fine of Rs.5,000/- imprisonment
(each of the
applicants)
342 of I.P.C. Simple imprisonment One month's
for one year with fine additional simple
of Rs.1,000/- (each imprisonment
of the applicants)
2. In connection with an incident dated 23.03.2016, wherein a lady named Smt.Indra Bai (complainant) was set on fire, an FIR bearing No.59/2016 was registered at Police Station-Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh on 24.03.2016, for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 307 & 34 of IPC against the present applicants-appellants. However, since Smt. Indra Bai passed away during her treatment in MBS Hospital, Kota, therefore, after investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the applicants-appellants under Sections 342, 324 and 302 I.P.C, and accordingly charges were framed. Subsequently, after due proceedings, the trial commenced and after conclusion of the trial, the applicants-appellants were convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2024, as above.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that the deceased was burnt because of falling into Holika Dahan (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] (ceremony held during Holi festival), and the applicant-appellants had no role in the said incident. It was submitted that applicants-
appellants tried to save the deceased by getting her clothes changed at the house of applicant-appellant No.2. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record which could connect the applicant-appellants with the crime in question. It was submitted that the Parcha Bayan, which the learned Trial Court took into consideration while passing the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2024, cannot be read into evidence as it was not recorded in presence of a Magistrate, even when Smt. Indra died after 22 days of the alleged incident. Furthermore, the police officer who recorded the said Parcha Bayan and the Doctor who gave the fitness certificate were not examined.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the testimony of witness P.W.1-Ramesh Chandra (husband of deceased) reveals that admittedly, deceased did not disclose anything to the said witness, and witness P.W.6 Shrawan Kumar (son of deceased) was declared hostile during the trial. It was further submitted that the depositions made by P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.12 who, as per the applicants-appellants were the independent witnesses, also supports the case of the applicants-appellants, more particularly, looking into the material contradictions in the depositions made by the other prosecution witnesses.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the record reveals a variance with respect to the date of sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory. EX.P.9 mentions the date as (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] 09.06.2016, while EX.P.11 mentions the date to be 21.06 2016, and thus, the possibility of tampering of the samples could not have been ruled out.
3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicants- appellants were on bail during trial, they are in custody for last more than one year, and the disposal of the appeal preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is likely to consume a long time. Thus, as per learned counsel, the sentences as awarded to the applicants-appellants by the learned Trial Court deserves to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicants- appellants, submitted that the learned Trial Court after conducting due trial and hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and therefore, it was a fit case for conviction of the applicants- appellants.
4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Parcha Bayan (EX.P.02) dated 24.03.2016 was recorded by a Sub Inspector, after the certificate of fitness was given by a competent doctor, and the said statement was given in presence of the husband of the deceased, Ramchandra Sen (P.W.1). It was submitted that in the said Parcha Bayan, the deceased revealed that on 23.03.2016 at around 11 p.m. when she was returning from Holika Dahan, the applicant-appellant No.1 and 3 grabbed (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] her and took her to the house of the applicant appellant No.2, where she was set on fire.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 1) i.e. husband of deceased, stated in his police statements that the deceased told him about the incident of burning when she returned, and she stated that the present applicants-appellants were responsible for burning her. It was submitted that in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, held during the trial of the case, has corroborated with the statements made in the aforementioned Parcha Bayan.
4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that during the investigation, the inspection report of the spot of incident (the house of applicant-appellant no. 2) was made, which indicated that burned clothes, pieces of bangles and burnt plastic paal was found at the spot, and the same were seized by the police. 4.4. It was further submitted that at the instance of applicant- appellant No.2, a kerosene bottle used to burn the deceased was found, and in pursuance of the said recovery, a Recovery Report (EX.P. 5) was prepared, which reveals that a bottle filled with kerosene was found within the house of applicant-appellant No. 2. Furthermore, the FSL report reveals that the clothes of the deceased had traces of kerosene, which would not have been possible had the deceased fell into the fire ceremony at the Holi festival.
4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submitted that it is apparent on the face of record that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubts, before the learned Trial (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] Court, and thus, the instant application for suspension of sentence deserves dismissal. Moreover, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the gravity of the crime in question is quite high and the involvement of the applicants-appellants in the said crime was duly proved during the trial. Moreover, looking into the grave nature of the crime and period of custody undergone by the applicants- appellants in this case, also do not call for grant of indulgence of suspension of sentence to them.
5. Heard counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. This Court finds that the applicants-appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court in connection with an incident, during the course of which, Smt. Indra (deceased) was set on fire, and after investigation, the applicants-appellants were found involved in the said crime.
7. This Court further finds learned Trial Court after due consideration of the factual matrix and the evidences such as the Parcha Bayan(EX.P.2) given by the deceased; the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused; the testimony of Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1); the seizure of the pieces bangle, clothes (which as per the FSL report have traces of Kerosene); Naksha Mauka asserting the place of burning of deceased to be the house of applicant appellant no. 2, has arrived at the conclusion of the guilt of the applicant-appellants.
8. This Court also finds that looking into the nature of crime in question and the evidence on the basis of which, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024] the learned Trial Court, the contention raised on behalf of the applicants-appellants as to the contradictions alleged to have occurred in the evidence, do not induce confidence of this Court at this stage, so as to grant indulgence of suspension of sentence to the applicants-appellants.
9. This Court further finds that apart from the above, the custody period of the applicants-appellants is not sufficient so as suspend the sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants by the learned Trial Court, at this stage.
10. Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants in this case.
11. Consequently, the present application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove, would not prejudice the case of the applicants-appellants in the appeal, on merits. (SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)