Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyanarayan @ Satya Son Of Shri Gopal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.
724/2021
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1280/2021
Satyanarayan @ Satya Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Ugariawas, Police Station Jobner,
District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 774/2021 In D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1332/2021 Chetan Son Of Shri Prabhu Narayan, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Kapadiyawas, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 775/2021 In D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1333/2021 Giraj S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kapadiyawas, P.s. Jobner, District Jaipur (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur )
----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 871/2021 In (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:31:36 PM) (2 of 5) [Sosa724/2021] D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1433/2021 Jagdish Prasad @ Jagga Son Of Shri Laxmanram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Gopalpura, P.s. Jobner, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 927/2021 In D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1506/2021 Banshi Lal Son Of Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Kesari Singhpura, Police Station Jobner District Jaipur (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prahalad Sharma through V.C. Mr. Rakesh Chandel on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Pareek through V.C. Mr. B.N. Sandu through V.C. Mr. D.K. Dixit through V.C. Mr. Sushil Pujari on behalf of Mr. Damodar Prasad Pujari through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore GA cum AAG with Mr. N.S. Gurjar, AGA through V.C. Mr. Muniner Singh with Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gauttam through V.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order 18/01/2022 Heard.
(Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:31:36 PM)
(3 of 5) [Sosa724/2021]
This order shall govern disposal of applications for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellants Satyanarayan @ Satya in Criminal Appeal No. 1280/2021, appellant Chetan in Criminal Appeal No. 1332/2021, appellant Giraj in Criminal Appeal No. 1333/2021, Jagdish Prasad @ jagga in Criminal Appeal No. 1433/2021 and Banshi Lal in Criminal Appeal No. 1506/2021.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants in aforesaid appeals raised a common argument. It has been contended before us that the conviction is founded on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without there being any clinching evidence. Counsel would argue that none of witness examined by prosecution are eye witnesses. It is argued that the trial court, in order to convict relied upon statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which could not be used as substantive evidence but only a corroborative evidence to support substantive evidence which is not there in the case. It is further submitted that evidence of witness suggests that the deceased while brought in the hospital in injured condition disclosed that he was assaulted at the instance of Banshi Lal, is an improvement. Further submission is that the statement of witnesses that deceased while admitted in the hospital stated that he had seen Banshi Lal is also complete improvement in the statement of PW-5. Except this, it is argued, there is no other incriminating material of substantial evidence to bring home the guilt. On the basis of evidence of dispute arising of monetary transaction between deceased and Banshi Lal conviction has been ordered.
On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that though prosecution has not brought any eye witness in the case, (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:31:36 PM) (4 of 5) [Sosa724/2021] there is evidence on record to prove that deceased and appellant Banshi Lal had serious ongoing dispute with regard to monetary transaction and the appellant had threatened the deceased that if he repeatedly comes to claim repayment of loan he would be assaulted and murdered.
Learned State counsel would further submit that it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that when deceased was admitted in the hospital he disclosed that he was assaulted at the instance of Banshi Lal and prosecution has come out with oral dying declaration that Banshi Lal was also one of the person who had covered their faces with mask with cloth.
We have heard counsel for the parties. On prima facie consideration it is found that the conviction of the appellants is not founded on any eye witness account. There is some evidence with regard to enmity existing between appellant and deceased over monetary transaction. However as far as oral dying declaration is concerned, statement appears to be made for the first time in the Court, that too on to the effect that deceased was assaulted at the instance of Banshi Lal. There is no other prosecution witness who has come with evidence in the form of last seen or cloths of appellant or weapon allegedly found stained with the blood of the group and origin of the deceased.
One of the appellant Satyanarayan has undergone 5 years 8 months years of jail sentence, others have gone more than 9 months of jail sentence. Therefore taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, suspension applications filed by the appellants Satyanarayan, Chetan, Giraj, Jagdish Prasad and Banshi Lal are allowed. Their jail sentences are suspended and they be released on each of them furnishing a personal bond of (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:31:36 PM) (5 of 5) [Sosa724/2021] Rs.25,000/- along with two local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for their appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 25.02.2022 and on such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than one year, during the pendency of the appeal. (BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Ashu /48-52 (Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 09:31:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)