Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chamna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/013105) on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023/RJJD/013105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 103/2023
Chamna Ram son of Shri Hanna Ji, aged 48 years, resident of
Village Bhadruna, P.S. Jhab, District Jalore.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Kumbhat
Mr. S.K. Maru
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
Mr. Vikram Choudhary, for the
complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order 02/05/2023
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Chamna Ram, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120B, 341, 148 of the IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanchore, District Jalore in Sessions Case No. 438/2015 (54/2020) vide judgment dated 02.08.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that complainant Karsanram (PW-2) in the first information report (Ex.P-7) had alleged that total 9 named persons Magna, Bhava, Bhanwara, Mahendra, Bhagwana, Chamna, Bhikha, Shankara, Mafaram and some others, inflicted injuries upon the person of complainant's father Masararam with rods and lathis resulting into his murder; that Out of these, four (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:17:20 PM) [2023/RJJD/013105] (2 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023] persons Mafaram, Maganaram, Shankararam and Mahendra respectively were not even charge-sheeted and only omnibus allegations were made in the first information report against the appellant; that the prosecution did not make any effort to implead the accused who were exonerated by the investigation officer by filing an application under section 319 of the Crpc; that Complainant P.W.2 Karsan Ram, in his cross examination has deposed that Magna Ram, Mahendra Kumar, Shankara Ram were the persons who inflicted injuries to his father using sharp edged weapons but in the later part of the statement, he has involved appellant Chamna Ram by stating that he also inflicted injuries upon his father by a sharp edged weapon, whereas as per recovery memo (Ex.P-24), an iron rod has been recovered from him; that Motbir witnesses of recovery memo Bhuraram (PW-12) and Praga ram (PW-13) have been declared hostile and both of them have not supported the recovery of rod from the appellant.
3. It is further argued that according to the FSL report, no blood stains were found on the said rod; that another eyewitness Dalpat (PW-4) had wrongly identified the all the accused present in the court. Learned counsel has also relied upon the statements of Dr. Balwant Singh and (PW-7) and Dr. Ravindra kumar (PW-17) coupled with postmortem report and argued that according to the statements of the doctors, main injury number 3 on the head of the deceased could not have been caused by an iron rod but could only have been caused by some sharp edged weapon; that even if the evidence produced by the prosecution is to be accepted then, the case against the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of section 304 part 2 of the IPC; that the appellant is in custody for the last about 8 and half years. (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:17:20 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013105] (3 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023]
4. Lastly, he prays that application for suspension of sentence of co- accused Bhanwarlal, Talkaram, Bhavaram and Bhagwanaram have already been allowed by this Court; that the appellant has an arguable case and hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficient time therefore, the sentences awarded to the appellant may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application seeking suspension of sentences and stated that the Masraram has been murdered by causing fatal injuries on his head and there are direct allegations against the appellant also. Therefore, looking to the nature of the offences, sentences awarded to the appellant may not be suspended.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the complete record as well as judgment impugned.
7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances available on record and particularly the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, considering the prolonged custody of the appellant and the bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal, we are of the opinion that the appellant-applicant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Thus, without commenting on merit of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant and release him on bail during pendency of the appeal.
8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanchore, District Jalore vide judgment dated 02.08.2022 in Sessions Case No. 438/2015 (54/2020) against the appellant Chamna Ram S/o Hanna Ji shall remain (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:17:20 PM) [2023/RJJD/013105] (4 of 4) [SOSA-103/2023] 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/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thosuand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 02.06.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below.
9. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
10. 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.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
24-nitin/-
(Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:17:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)