Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.
Birbal @ Balla & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No. 1199/2021 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1926/2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
[SUSPENSION] - [SENTENCE] - [The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence for the appellants, considering the lack of independent eyewitnesses, material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, and the nature of injuries sustained by the victims. The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing of the appeal, which may take time, and thus deemed it just to suspend the sentence pending the appeal's resolution.]
Fact of the Case:
[The appellants were convicted and sentenced to a maximum of four years for various offences under the IPC, including attempted murder and causing grievous hurt. They claimed false implication and highlighted the absence of independent witnesses and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence.]
Finding of the Court:
[The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries were dangerous to life and noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented. It acknowledged the potential length of the appeal process and the appellants' prior bail status during the trial.]
Issues: [Whether the appellants should be granted suspension of sentence pending appeal, considering the evidence and circumstances of the case.]
Ratio Decidendi: [The court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to uphold the conviction, particularly regarding the severity of injuries and the credibility of witnesses, warranting the suspension of the sentence.]
Result: [The application for suspension of sentence was granted, allowing the appellants to be released on bail pending the outcome of their appeal.]
ORDER
1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellants have filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Act) Cases, Bharatpur in Session Case No. 106/2016, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 307/149, 332 and 333 of IPC and sentenced to maximum term of four years.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent eye witness of the incident. The appellants have been sentenced to maximum term of four years of imprisonment for offences under Sections 307/149 and 333 of IPC. During trial, the appellants were on bail. Injuries of injured PW-2-Surendra Singh @ Lala are simple in nature while one injury of injured Ramcharan Sharma-PW-16 has been levelled as dangerous to life but PW-8-Dr. M.L. Kanwat has stated in his cross-examination that he did not treat the injured-Ramcharan. Operation was also not done by him. He has also admitted that opinion of operating Doctor was not recorded. Doctor, who operated the injured-Ramcharan was also not examined during the prosecution evidence. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that the injury caused to Ramcharan was dangerous to life. There are material infirmities and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Hearing of the appeal may take long time.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record carefully.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, evidence available on record and overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.
8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-appellants (1) Birbal @ Balla Son Of Shri Samdriya (2) Kajod Son Of Shri Gopal (3) Smt. Santra Devi Wife Of Shri Kajodmal (4) Smt. Barfi Devi Wife Of Kastur Chand (5) Smt. Sunita Wife Of Shri Mukesh and (6) Kistura Urf Kastur Chand Son Of Shri Birbal Urf Bhalla shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of the appellants furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance in this Court on 17th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.
[The court established that the presence of material contradictions in prosecution evidence and the nature of injuries can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.]
The court established that insufficient evidence of serious injury can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The court established that non-vital injuries and prior bail status can justify the suspension of a sentence during an appeal.
The court allowed the suspension of sentence for accused-applicants pending appeal, emphasizing their prior bail status and involvement of a co-accused.
The presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction when corroborated by other credible testimonies.
The court granted suspension of sentence based on the duration of custody and issues with eyewitness credibility, emphasizing the need for strong evidence in ongoing appeals.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the lack of sufficient evidence can warrant the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The court can suspend a sentence during the appeal process if justified by circumstances such as the duration of custody and similar cases.
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
