Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1778

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ.
Bajrang Meghwal @ Bajju & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 495/2020 and Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 295/2020
Decided On : 23-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Mr. Vineet Jain, Mr. Ashok Kumar, for the Appellant; Mr. N.S. Bhati, Mr. Moti Singh, Mr. S.S. Gour, for the Respondent.

The judgment establishes that inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence can warrant suspension of sentences pending appeal.

Headnote:
Suspension - Conviction - IPC Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 149; Arms Act Sections 3/25, 27 - The court analyzed the evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies and medical reports, leading to the conclusion that the appellants had strong grounds for appeal, thus allowing suspension of sentences.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for murder and related offences after an incident where the victim was shot. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, which were later contradicted by medical evidence and police records.
Finding of the Court:

The court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding witness credibility and medical evidence, suggesting that the appellants had a strong basis for appeal.
Issues: Whether the appellants should be granted bail pending appeal based on the merits of the case and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the suspension of sentences.
Result: The applications for suspension of sentences were allowed, and the appellants were granted bail pending appeal.

ORDER

Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the applicants appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant. Perused the impugned Judgment as well as the record.

2. These two applications for suspension of sentences have been preferred on behalf of the appellants applicants who have been convicted and sentenced as below vide Judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.20/2015 (CIS No.20/2015):

Bajrang:

Offences	Sentences	Fine	Fine Default sentences
Section 147 IPC	2 Years? R.I.	Rs.500/-	1 Months? S.I.
Section 148 IPC	3 Years? R.I.	Rs.1000/-	2 Months? S.I.
Section 341 IPC	1 Months? R.I.	Rs.500/-	5 Days? S.I.
Section 302 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	2 Years? S.I.

Prabhati, Date Ram, Bittu, Rajendra @ Ghamiya

Offences	Sentences	Fine	Fine Default sentences
Section 147 IPC	2 Years? R.I.	Rs.500/-	1 Months? S.I.
Section 148 IPC	3 Years? R.I.	Rs.1000/-	2 Months? S.I.
Section 341 IPC	1 Months? R.I.	Rs.500/-	5 Days? S.I.
Section 302/149 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	2 Years? S.I.
Section 3/25 of the Arms Act	3 Years? R.I.	Rs.1,000/-	1 Month?s S.I.
Section 27 of the Arms Act	3 Years? R.I.	Rs.1,000/-	1 Month?s S.I.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor was given ample opportunity for filing reply to the applications for suspension of sentences but he has chosen not to do so.

4. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the complainant has filed an affidavit regarding the previous criminal conduct of the accused. A counter affidavit of Bhim Singh (brother of the accused appellant Bajrang Singh) has been filed wherein, it has been narrated that the accused appellant Bajrang Singh has been acquitted in most of the criminal cases registered against him till date.

5. Brief facts relevant and essential for decision of the two applications for suspension of sentences are narrated herein below:

6. The complainant Mahesh (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh at 03.15 pm. on 27.01.2015 at the Community Health Center, Hisar alleging inter alia that on the very same day at about 12.15 pm., his father Ramswaroop was proceeding from their home towards the bus stand. He had reached near the Government School Jhansal, where Bajrang Meghwal, Chandrabhan, Prabhati, Dataram, Bittu and Ghamiya, all armed with pistols/firearms, were waiting from before. They surrounded his father Ramswaroop and started firing at him. Data Ram fired his weapon and the resultant gunshot hit his father on the head. Bajrang fired from his weapon which hit on the abdomen of his father. On hearing the commotion, the informant, his brother Rajendra, Kuldeep and other people rushed to the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons escaped in the nearby lanes. He and his brothers checked his father on which, Bajrang exhorted that he would kill all. His father was taken to the Chhani Bari Hospital. The doctor at Chhani Bari referred him to the Hisar Hospital for treatment. While they were on the way, his father passed away. His father had been attacked by Bajrang and others with firearms due to which, he expired.

On the basis of this report, an FIR No.10/2015 (Ex.P/2) came to be registered at the Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 341 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Prabhati, Data Ram, Bittu and Rajendra @ Ghamiya for the offences under Sections 302, 341, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and against the accused Bajrang and Lal Chand for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 120 and 109 of the IPC in the Court of