Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Ghewarram - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 327 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2022
Suspension of Sentences - Criminal Appeal - Section 389 Cr.P.C. - Section 450 IPC, Section 459 IPC, Section 460 IPC, Section 394 IPC, Section 397 IPC, Section 323/34 IPC, Section 324/34 IPC, Section 325/34 IPC, Section 307/34 IPC, Section 302/34 IPC - The court allowed the application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and ordered the suspension of sentences till the final disposal of the appeal, releasing the appellant on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for various offenses including house breaking, dacoity, and murder. The appellant filed an application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had significant grounds to challenge the impugned judgment and had suffered more than 10 years of imprisonment without the possibility of an early appeal hearing. Considering the lack of criminal antecedents and the circumstances, the court deemed it just and proper to suspend the sentences and release the appellant on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence connecting the appellant with the crime, the delay in recovery of incriminating articles, and the portrayal of the assailants by the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of criminal antecedents, the significant grounds to challenge the judgment, and the appellant's prolonged imprisonment without the possibility of an early appeal hearing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C., ordered the suspension of sentences till the final disposal of the appeal, and released the appellant on bail.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
1. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilara, District Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 96/2020 (18/2012) CNR No. RJJR-13-000460-2020:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default Sentences |
| Section 450 IPC | 10 Years' R.I. | Rs. 2,000/- | 2 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 459 IPC | 10 Years' R.I. | Rs. 2,000/- | 2 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 460 IPC | 10 Years' R.I. | Rs. 2,000/- 2 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
|
| Section 394 IPC | 10 Years' R.I. | Rs. 2,000/- | 2 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 397 IPC | 7 Years' Imprisonment |
|
|
| Section 323/34 IPC | 1 Year's R.I. | Rs. 500/- | 15 Days' Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 324/34 IPC | 3 Years' R.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | 1 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 325/34 IPC | 7 Years' R.I. | Rs. 1500/- | 45 Days' Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 307/34 IPC | 10 Years' R.I. | Rs. 2,000/- | 2 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| Section 302/34 | IPC Life Imprisonment | Rs. 5,000/- | 6 Month's Additional Imprisonment |
| All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
2. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant appellant seeking release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel Shri Girish Choudhary representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that there is hardly any evidence worth the name of the record so as to connect the appellant with the crime. The incident involves house breaking by the night, dacoity and triple murder in the house of Shri Mangla Ram Dewasi at the Village Baag Ki Dhani, Bilara which took place in the night intervening 13/14.01.2012. Smt. Dhagli and Dariyav survived the assault whereas Dakhu Devi, Sangeeta and Ratna Ram lost their lives. Sangeeta before she expired identified one of the assailants namely Salim. However, she did not identify the appellant herein. The appellant has been convicted in this case merely on the basis of recovery of his blood stained clothes. Shri Choudhary urged that the recovery was effect after significant delay and thus, it is unbelievable that the appellant would have preserved the worthless incriminating articles for the same to be recovered by the police at a later stage. On these grounds, Shri Girish Choudhary implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences as per which, the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. He has suffered imprisonment of nearly 10 years and 2 months without remission as on date. As per the prosecution allegations, three unknown assailants committed house breaking by the night in the house of Mangla Ram in the night of 14.01.2012 with the intention of committing dacoity and during this process, they assaulted the inmates Smt. Dhagli, Dakhu Devi, Dariyav Devi, Ratna Ram and Sangeeta and looted the valuable articles, ornaments, etc. and a Tavera Car No. RJ-19-UA-5033. Dakhu, Ratna Ram and Sangeeta expired as a result of the injuries received in the assault whereas Dhagli Devi and Dariyav Devi were injured. The prosecution has tried to portray that the faces of the assailants were covered by clothes. However, during the assault, the cloth covering the face of one of the assailants slipped and the deceased Sangeeta identified him to be Salim who blurted out the na
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
