HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ
LIKHMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
SOSA / 1273 / 2022
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 459 - Suspension of Sentence application - Convict sentenced to life imprisonment and fine under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment under Section 459 for killing son over property dispute - Prosecution's case supported by eye-witnesses, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased - Application for suspension based on duration of custody - Court considers animosity and period of custody, allowing suspension of sentence. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 389 - Conditions for bail set, including appearance before trial court and notification of address changes - Trial court to maintain attendance record separately. (Paras 7-8)
ORDER :
This Suspension of Sentence application has been moved by the convict who has suffered punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of ten years' and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. This is a case of killing of son by the father on account of some property dispute between them. In the trial the prosecution produced twelve witnesses out of whom the wife of the deceased Peera Ram and his daughter-in-law were produced as eye-witnesses.
3. The Sessions Judge at Jalore believed the testimony of P.W.2 Heera Devi who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.3 Jamna Devi who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Sections 302 and 459 of the Indian Penal Code against Likhma Ram.
4. This Suspension of Sentence Application has been moved primarily on the ground of period of custody of the convict who has undergone about eleven years of actual custody by now.
5. Mr. Zeeshan Ali, the learned Amicus refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 and submits that there is no reasonable likelihood of hearing of D.B. Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2018 in the near future. However Mr. C.S. Ojha, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this Suspension of Sentence Application moved by the present convict.
6. Having regard to the animosity between the father and son arising out of a property dispute and considering the period of custody undergone by the present convict, we are inclined to allow this Suspension of Sentence Application.
7. Accordingly, the application for Suspension of Sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant abovenamed, namely, Likhma Ram son of Sh. Chamna Ram, shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge for his appearance before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 17th March 2025 on the following conditions:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s) they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Miscellaneous file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
The court allowed the suspension of sentence based on the convict's lengthy custody and the nature of the dispute, emphasizing conditions for bail and future appearances.
The court upheld that minimal involvement in a crime justifies a liberal approach to suspending a sentence pending appeal under IPC provisions.
The court allowed the suspension of sentence for the appellant, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the duration of custody and justifying the conviction under relevant laws.
The failure of the victim to identify the convict-applicant is significant for considering bail suspension, highlighting the court's discretion in such matters.
The court may suspend a convict's sentence post-conviction based on custody duration and evidence merits, despite diminished presumption of innocence.
Suspension of sentence granted due to lack of evidence and maternal relationship to deceased.
The court may suspend a life sentence based on the duration of custody and circumstances of the case, even when evidence against the convict exists.
Suspension of sentence under Section 389 requires a strong case, considering the gravity of the crime and the applicant's past conduct, which was not established in this instance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.