HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 932/2022

Kaluram S/o Bherulal Teli, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chittodi P.s.

Kotwali Chittorgarh, At Present Tenant Of Gotu Chamar, Banesti,

P.s. Shambhupura Dist. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At Dist.

Jail, Udaipur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 769/2022

Radha Sukhla W/o Shri Kaptan Sukhla, Aged About 39 Years, R/o

Moolchand Nagar, Dist. Kampur, U.p. At Present 4-B-11, Mahi

Sarowar, Housing Board, Banswara, P.s. Kotwali, Dist. Banswara.

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur),

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas

Mr. K.R. Bhati

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

29/11/2022

The appellants herein have been convicted and

sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed

(2 of 7)

[SOSA-932/2022]

by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case

No.87/2017 :-

Name of the

appellant-

applicant

Offence

for

which

convicted

Sentence awarded and fine

imposed

(1) Kaluram

(2)

Smt.

Radha Sukhla

Section

302/120-B IPC

Life imprisonment alongwith a

fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default

of payment of fine, further to

undergo rigorous imprisonment

of two years

Section

201/120-B IPC

Three

years’

rigorous

imprisonment alongwith a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, further to

undergo one month’s simple

imprisonment

Section 394 IPC Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment

alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/-

and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo one year’s

rigorous imprisonment

They have preferred the applications under Section 389

CrPC seeking suspension of sentences awarded to them by the

trial court.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted replies in both

the applications.

A perusal of the reply filed to the application for

suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the accused Kaluram

indicates that he does not have any criminal antecedents. The

accused was on bail during the course of trial and there is no

allegation that he misused the liberty so granted to him during the

pendency of the trial.

The accused Radha is in custody right from the date of

her arrest, i.e. June 2017 and she has a small child with her in

prison.

(3 of 7)

[SOSA-932/2022]

Learned counsel Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas, learned counsel

representing the appellant Kaluram, and Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned

counsel representing the appellant Smt. Radha Sukhla,

vehemently and fervently urged that there is no plausible evidence

whatsoever on the record of the case to connect the appellants

with the crime of murder of Shri Gangaram. The entire

prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, which is

sheerly based on conjectures and surmises. They pointed out that

the dead body of Shri Gangaram was found lying abandoned in his

own car on 16.06.2017. The FIR (Ex.P/55) was lodged by his son

against unknown assailants. The Investigation Officer conducted

laconic investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellants

purely on the basis of whims, conjectures and surmises. The

appellant Kaluram has been linked in this case on the basis of

recovery of currency notes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and a

mobile phone. However, neither the IMEI number of the mobile

phone was brought on record nor the sim number allegedly being

used by the appellant was proved during trial. Thus, as per Shri

Umesh Kant Vyas, the prosecution allegation that the appellant

Kaluram conspired with the accused Kaptan Sukhla for the murder

of Shri Gangaram Teli is perfunctory and conjectural as the same

is not based on any plausible evidence whatsoever. He su