HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

724/2023

in

S.B. Criminal Appeal no. 1056/2023

1.

Mahendra Son Of Raghuwar, Resident Of Pahadi Police

Station Sadar Karauli District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At

Present In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur)

2.

Siyaram Son Of Raghuwar, Resident Of Pahadi Police

Station Sadar Karauli District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At

Present In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur)

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP

Mr. Asad Ul Haq Nooree

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

10/07/2023

This application for suspension of sentence is preferred in

pending appeal which was admitted for hearing on 10.05.2023

filed aggrieved of order of conviction and sentence dated

26.04.2023 in sessions case No. 20/2018 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby the appellants were

convicted under Sections 323/34, 307/149 of IPC and further

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year, rigorous

imprisonment of ten years along with fine respectively.

(2 of 5)

[SOSA-724/2023]

Learned counsel for appellants while relying upon grounds of

appeal submitted that parties belong to same family and it was

complainant party who was aggressor. He further submitted that

from statement of PW-1 it was admitted that the land in question

was in possession of accused party and a civil suit is already

pending before the court of ACM, Karauli. He further submitted

that both injured PW-1, Bablu @ Prithiviraj and PW-4 Sheeshram

have admitted that disputed land was in possession of accused

and they stopped accused party from digging a borewell. He

further submitted that from the statement of PW-14 it was

established that injured Sheeshram, Bhagwan and Prithviraj @

Bablu sustained simple injuries as none of them were proved as

grievous injury. He further submitted that no fracture was found

and it was admitted by PW-14 that no record is available to

establish that these injured have suffered pain over 20 days or

more. He further referred the statement of PW-15, Investigating

Officer to submit that sticks were recovered from present

appellant and a cross-case was registered against complainant

party as well. He further submitted that from complainant party

Rajaram who later died was also implicated by police in cross case

registered by appellant accused party and firearm was recovered

from him. He submits that one of the appellant Gangaram also

sustained gunshot injury, therefore, it was open and free fight but

complainant party was aggressor in the matter. He further

submitted that the learned trial court has failed to notice the

discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses and after ignoring

these material contradictions convicted present appellants. He

further submitted that both appellants were on bail during trial

(3 of 5)

[SOSA-724/2023]

and they never misused the liberty of bail. He further submitted

that appeal in cross case was filed against order of acquittal and

this Court has issued notice to opposite party. At last, he

submitted that disposal of appeal will take its own time. So, they

be granted the benefit of bail.

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel

for complainant submits that after registration of F.I.R. by present

complainant just to create defence, a cross case was registered by

present appellants. He further submitted that there was no firearm

with Rajaram and without any basis police has filed charge-sheet

but learned trial court after considering the material available on

record, has acquitted all persons belonging to complainant party

from the said cross case. He further submitted t