[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bindu Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 708/2025
Bindu Devi W/o Mahipal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Jadau, P.s. Padu Kalan, District Nagaur (Raj) (At Present Lodged
At Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Jajra
Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Reserved on 14/07/2025
Pronounced on 23/07/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The applicant-appellant has preferred the present application
for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430
B.N.S.S.) with the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this application may
kindly be allowed and the sentence of imprisonment and
fine passed by Learned Additional Session Judge, Merta
(Raj.) in Sessions Case No. 37/2020 vide judgement dated
02.04.2025 may kindly be suspended during the pendency
of this appeal and the appeallant-applicant may kindly be
ordered to be released on bail.”
2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court were that a
hand-written report (Ex.P.5) was presented by complainant Suresh
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (2 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
Mundel before CHC, Merta, wherein it was alleged tgat on
21.05.2020 his father Makraram and mother Santi Devi went to
the condolence meeting of father of one Prakash Mundel, and on
their way back, lying in ambush and armed with weapons
Punaram, Kamalkishore, Mastudi, Mugnaram’ wife, Punaram’s both
daughters, Mahipal, Munni Devi, Lalita Devi and other people had
beat his mother to death on the spot and broke the hands of his
father.
2.1. It was further alleged that at the time of incident Madanram,
Sachin, Bhikaram intervened and admitted them to hospital. His
mother was kept in the morchuary and his father was reffered to
Jodhpur.
2.2. On the basis of the aforementioned written report
investigation commenced, and subsequently the chargesheet was
presented, and charges were framed under sections 147,148, 341,
3. After the Trial, applicant-appellant was convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Session Case No. 37/2020.
Offence Sentence In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
147 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment One (01) month
for one year with fine additional rigorous
of Rupees 1,000/- imprisonment
(one thousand)
148 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment Two (02) months
for Two years with fine additional rigorous
of Rupees 2,000/- imprisonment
(Two thousand)
341 of I.P.C. Simple imprisonment Fifteen (15) days
for one month with additional simple
fine of Rupees 500/- imprisonment
(Five hundred)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (3 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
323/149 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment One (1) month
for Six months with additional rigorous
fine of Rupees 500/- imprisonment
(Five hundred)
325/149 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment Three (03) Months
for Three years with additional rigorous
fine of Rupees 3,000/- imprisonment
(three thousand)
307/149 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment Six (6) months
for Ten years with fine additional rigorous
of Rupees 5,000/- (five imprisonment
thousand)
302/149 of I.P.C. Life imprisonment with Six (06) months
fine of Rupees 5,000/- additional rigorous
(Five thousand) imprisonment
4. Mr. Ajay Vyas, learned counsel on behalf of applicant-
appellants submitted that the appeal against the Judgment dated
02.04.2025 should be treated as part and parcel of this
application. It was further submitted that there was every chances
of success of the appeal, because it is apparent from the facts and
circumstances of the case that the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the instant case.
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the evidence of
P.W.1 Madanram, P.W.3 Sachin Choudhary, and P.W.4 Makraram
indicates that the prosecution has made omnibus allegations
against the accused party, implicating the applicant-appellant
purely due to prior enmity.
4.2. Learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. was silent
regarding any description of the weapons used to cause injuries to
the deceased and Makraram (P.W.4); however, subsequent
statements of prosecution witnesses sought to improve the
prosecution’s case by introducing specific weapons allegedly used
by the accused party.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (4 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
4.3. Learned counsel submitted that when the two witnesses who
admittedly reached the place of incident first–P.W.3 Sachin and
Bheekaram both clearly deposed that they did not witness the
beatings, it seriously undermines the prosecution’s case. Their
testimony casts doubt on the claim that any other witnesses who
arrived subsequently could have seen the incident, thereby raising
grave suspicion about the reliability and truthfulness of the
prosecution’s version of events.
4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the place of incident,
as alleged by the prosecution, is situated outside the house of the
applicant-appellant, thereby making her presence at the scene a
natural and plausible occurrence, which by itself cannot be
construed as indicative of guilt.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant-
appellant is a lady with a young child, and this Hon’ble Court had
been pleased to grant her bail vide order dated 02.11.2020 in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9630/2020, taking into
consideration the fact that she was 8½ months pregnant at the
relevant time. It was submitted that she was released pursuant to
the said order upon execution of bail bonds and remains ready
and willing to furnish bail bonds as may be directed by this
Hon’ble Court.
4.6. Learned counsel submitted that P.W.15 Kamalkishore
allegedly stated that a lathi was recovered at the instance of the
applicant-appellant from an enclosure near her house; however, it
was contended that no blood was found on the said lathi as per
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (5 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
the FSL report, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case of her
active involvement.
5. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. B.R.
Jajra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant,
opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted
that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned and well-
considered judgment of conviction after appreciating the evidence
on record in accordance with law. It was further contended that
the applicant-appellant has been convicted for offences of a grave
and heinous nature, and no case is made out for suspension of
sentence at this stage.
5.1. It was further submitted that P.W.4 Makraram, an injured
eyewitness, has clearly deposed that the applicant-appellant,
along with other accused persons, assaulted him and his wife with
lathis, which resulted in the death of his wife. The motive behind
the incident was attributed to prior animosity. Additionally, P.W.1
Madanram, the brother of P.W.4, deposed that upon witnessing his
brother and sister-in-law being assaulted, he attempted to
intervene, but the accused party chased him, compelling him to
flee and call for help.
5.2. It was further submitted that P.W.3 Sachin Choudhary
deposed that at the relevant time, the applicant-appellant, along
with others, was armed with a lathi, and that Makraram was lying
on the ground in an injured condition. He further stated that Santi
Devi (deceased) was critically injured and succumbed to her
injuries. Similarly, P.W.8 Bheekharam corroborated this version by
stating that he had accompanied Sachin in a car to the spot and
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (6 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
had seen the applicant-appellant and others holding lathis, and
both Makraram and his wife were in critical condition.
5.3. It was further submitted that P.W.13 Dr. Baldev, who
conducted the post-mortem examination, found as many as 22
injuries on the body of the deceased Santi Devi, and opined that
the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Additionally, P.W.24, the medical officer who
examined the injured witness Makraram, found 10 injuries on his
body, further corroborating the prosecution’s version of a brutal
and collective assault.
5.4. It was also submitted that P.W.15 Kamalkishore, the
investigating officer, confirmed that the recovery of a lathi was
effected at the instance of the applicant-appellant from an
enclosure near her residence, thereby lending further support to
the prosecution’s case under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
5.5. It was further submitted that only minor discrepancies exist
between the contents of the FIR and the statements recorded
before the learned trial court, and such inconsistencies do not go
to the root of the matter or materially affect the credibility of the
prosecution’s case.
5.6. It was further submitted that even if a specific overt act may
not have been attributed individually to the applicant-appellant,
her liability is clearly attracted under Section 149 IPC. The
evidence on record, including the depositions of injured
eyewitnesses and recovery made at her instance, establishes that
she was a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (7 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
which was to commit a grievous offence, including the fatal
assault on the deceased. Once it is established that the accused
was part of the unlawful assembly, each member of that assembly
is vicariously liable for the acts done in prosecution of the common
object, irrespective of their individual role. Hence, the applicant-
appellant’s presence at the scene, her participation, and her
shared intent with other co-accused sufficiently satisfy the
ingredients required for invoking Section 149 IPC.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
7. This Court observes that the conviction of the applicant-
appellant rests primarily upon the testimony of injured eyewitness
P.W.4 Makraram, who has attributed a direct role to the applicant-
appellant, alleging that she, along with other co-accused,
assaulted him and his wife with lathis, resulting in fatal injuries to
the latter. His deposition finds partial corroboration in the
statements of P.W.1 Madanram, P.W.3 Sachin Choudhary, and
P.W.8 Bheekharam. P.W.3 and P.W.8 in particular testified that they
saw the applicant-appellant with a lathi in her hand at the scene,
although they did not categorically state having seen her inflict
blows.
8. However, This Court finds that some of these depositions are
vague and general in nature, lacking specific attribution of fatal
blows or individualized overt acts to the applicant-appellant. The
FIR (Ex.P.5) is also silent as to the description of weapons or the
precise role of the applicant-appellant, raising questions regarding
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (8 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
subsequent improvements made during trial. Moreover, P.W.3 and
P.W.8, who were among the first to arrive at the scene, admitted
not having witnessed the actual assault, which creates a degree of
uncertainty in the prosecution’s narrative.
9. This Court observes that it is also a matter of record that the
recovery of a lathi at the instance of the applicant-appellant has
been confirmed by P.W.15, the investigating officer; however, the
FSL report did not confirm the presence of blood on the recovered
weapon, thereby diluting the evidentiary value of the recovery.
10. This Court observse that s regards the applicability of Section
149 IPC, while it is trite law that membership of an unlawful
assembly with a common object may render each member
vicariously liable, the burden still lies on the prosecution to
establish such common object through cogent and consistent
evidence. The omnibus nature of allegations, the absence of
specific attribution of fatal acts, and the conflicting accounts of
material witnesses dilute the certainty required at this stage to
conclusively attribute individual guilt under Section 149 IPC.
11. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the applicant-
appellant is a woman with a young child and was earlier granted
bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.11.2020 in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9630/2020, considering her
advanced stage of pregnancy at the time. There is no material
placed before the Court indicating misuse of liberty or violation of
bail conditions during the pre-trial period.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (9 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
12. In view of the totality of circumstances as stated above,
particularly the fact that the applicant-appellant is a lady with a
young child and nature of evidence against the applicant-
appellant, the generalised allegations, the absence of strong
forensic corroboration, the prior bail granted during Trial, and the
pendency of appeal which may take considerable time for final
adjudication, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit
case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the
appeal.
13. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (Section 430 of the B.N.S.S.) is
allowed.
13.1. It is thus ordered that substantive sentence passed vide
judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Merta in Session Case No. 37/2020, against the appellant-
applicant, namely, Bindu Devi W/o Mahipal, shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall
be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of learned trial Judge for her appearance in this Court
on 28.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. That she 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, she
will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31075-DB] (10 of 10) [SOSA-708/2025]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s) they will
give in writing their changed address to the trial court.
13.2. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the applicant-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the
applicant-appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order
shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc.
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, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court
for cancellation of bail.
13.3. It is however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove, would not prejudice the case of the applicant-
appellants in the appeal, on merits.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link