Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhera Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 658/2024
Lichu Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Riddi,
Teh. Sridungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 513/2023
1. Nanu Ram S/o Mota Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Riddi, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.) (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
2. Gopal Ram S/o Imrtaram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Riddi, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.) (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
3 Rameshwar Lal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Riddi, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.) (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
4. Dula Ram S/o Imrtaram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Riddi,
Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.) (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (2 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 937/2023
Bhera Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Riddi, Teh.
Sridungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Mr. R.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, P.P.
Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Reserved on 07/05/2025
Pronounced on 28/05/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The applicants-appellants, namely, Lichu Ram S/o Dungar
Ram, Nanu Ram S/o Mota Ram, Gopal Ram S/o Imrtaram,
Rameshwar Lal S/o Hari Ram, Dula Ram S/o Imrtaram and Bhera
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (3 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]Ram S/o Ratna Ram have preferred the instant applications under
Section 389 Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence, as awarded
to them vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.11/2022 (Old Case
No.233/2008), whereby the applicants-appellants were convicted
and sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
341 of I.P.C. One Month's Simple Five Days' Additional
Imprisonment, with Imprisonment
fine of Rs.500/- (each of the
(each of the applicants)
applicants)
148 of I.P.C. Three Years' Simple Two months'
Imprisonment with additional simple
fine of Rs.2,000/- imprisonment
(each of the (each of the
applicants) applicants)
302/149 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment, Six months'
with fine of additional simple
Rs.25,000/- imprisonment
(each of the (each of the
applicants) applicants)
2. In connection with an incident dated 21.07.2008, wherein
three persons namely, Tiloknath, Lalnath and Ruparam were
returning after conducting a panchayat meeting. On their way
back their vehicle was surrounded, whereafter they were attacked
and murdered using weapons like Barchi, Shaila, Gandasi, axe &
Jei, lathi etc., resultantly an FIR bearing No.341/2008 was
registered at Police Station, Dungargarh for the offences under
Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 341, 382, 147, 148 & 149 IPC
and the investigation commenced accordingly. After due
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (4 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324,
341, 382, 147, 148 & 149 IPC was presented by the police against
the present applicants-appellants and other accused person, and
also against one accused namely, Prabhuram charge-sheet was
submitted under Section 302 & 120B IPC.
2.1. At the stage of framing of charges, all the accused persons
were discharged of the offences under Sections 382 & 307 IPC; all
the accused persons were charged under Sections 341, 148,
302/149 & 324/149 IPC, and upon denial of such charges, the trial
commenced before the learned Trial Court, culminating into
passing of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, whereby the applicants-appellants were convicted and
sentenced, as above.
3. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Choudhary and Mr. R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant-
appellant Lichu Ram, submitted that an appeal is pending before
the Hon’ble Court and there are bright chances of the same of
being decided in favour of the present applicant-appellants, as in
totality of circumstances, no prima facie case is made out and the
applicant-appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence
awarded to the similarly situated co-accused persons (Ashi,
Parmeshwari, Sohani & Rami – D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application (Appeal) No.94/2023 and Mamraj (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No.1532/2023) have already been suspended by this Hon’ble
Court vide orders dated 19.04.2023 & 05.04.2024, respectively,
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (5 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
and the case of the present applicant-appellants is not much
distinguishable from the case of the said co-accused persons who
have been granted indulgence of suspension of sentence.
3.2. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that in the present
case, two Lichu Rams’ have been charge-sheeted by the police,
namely, Lichu Ram s/o Nanu Ram and Lichu Ram s/o Dungar Ram
(applicant-appellant). However, the name of Lichu Ram s/o Dungar
Ram, did not appear in the FIR. Furthermore, it was submitted
that Ramkaran PW. 1 and Ashunath PW. 3 have not named the
applicant-appellant Lichu Ram in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
It was further submitted that though Bhagirath PW.2 and
Beghnath PW.4 have named the applicant-appellant Lichu Ram in
their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the said statements were given
as an afterthought, as they were recorded after 10 days of the
alleged incident.
3.3. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that no specific
role was assigned to the applicant-appellant Lichu Ram by the
prosecution. It was also submitted that after the applicant-
appellant was arrested on 28.08.2008, recovery of a ‘lathi’ was
made at the instance of Lichu Ram on 29.08.2008. however, as
per the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P. 141), the blood group found of the
lathi did not match with the blood group of the deceased.
3.4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused-
applicant appellant has been lodged in jail from the date of
judgment of conviction and that the disposal of the appeal
preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence is likely to consume a long time. Thus, as per learned
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (6 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
counsel, the sentences as awarded to the applicants-appellants by
the learned Trial Court deserves to be suspended, during
pendency of the appeal.
3.5. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that the applicant-
appellant Lichu Ram was roped in the present case due to long
standing dispute between the parties and political rivalry.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant, while opposing the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the applicant-appellants, submitted
that the learned Trial Court after conducting due trial and hearing
both the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and therefore, it
was a fit case for conviction of the applicant-appellants.
4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Post-
mortem Reports (Ex.P. 24, 25 and 26) of the deceased Triloknath,
Lalnath and Ruparam reveal that there were more than 40, 19 and
15 injuries on the body of the deceased, respectively, which show
the brutality of the incident and thus, indulgence of the Hon’ble
Court in suspending their sentences is not warranted in this case.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that in the incident
dated 21.07.2008, the deceased were attacked by a mob in which
the applicant-appellants also participated. The FIR, the statements
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses
clearly establish the presence of the applicant-appellants in the
committing the horrifying incident.
4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that recoveries
were made at the instance of the applicant-appellants, which
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (7 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
establish the participation of the applicant-appellants in the
incident in question.
4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submitted that it is apparent
on the face of record that the prosecution has been able to prove
its case, beyond all reasonable doubts, before the learned Trial
Court, and thus, the instant application for suspension of sentence
deserves dismissal. Moreover, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the
gravity of the crime in question is quite high and the involvement
of the applicants-appellants in the said crime was duly proved
during the trial. Furthermore, looking into the grave nature of the
crime and period of custody undergone by the applicant-appellants
in this case, also do not call for grant of indulgence of suspension
of sentence to them.
5. Heard counsel for the parties as well as perused the record
of the case.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present
applications for suspension of sentence bearing numbers
658/2024, 513/2023, and 937/2023 arise from the common
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2023 in
pursuance of which the applicant-appellants have also preferred
appeal which is pending before this Hon’ble Court. Thus, the
aforementioned applications of suspension of sentence are being
decided by this common order.
7. This Court finds that for the sake of clarity and proper
analysis of the present case, the instances where the name of the
applicant-appellants specifically appeared in FIR (Ex.P.71),
statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution witnesses, and
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (8 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
bayan gavah namely, PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 (the eye-
witnesses) during the different stages of investigation and trial,
has been reproduced in a tabular form hereunder:
Names Lichu Ram Nanu Ram Gopal Ram Rameshwa Dula Ram Bhera Ram
r Lal
Father Dungar Ram Mota Ram Imrtaram Hari Ram Imrtaram Ratna Ram
Name
FIR (EX.P Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Dhula ram Name
71) S/O Nanu appears appears S/O S/O Jetha appears
ram Rugharam ram
PW.3 (161 Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Name Name
Statement S/O Nanu appears appears S/O appears appears
) (Ex.D4) ram Rugharam
P.W.3 Lichu ram Name -Not named Rameshwar -Not named -Not named
(Suppleme S/O Nanu appears S/O
ntary ram Rugharam
Statement
)(Ex.D5)
PW.1 (161 Lichu ram Name Name only name Name Name
Statement S/O Nanu appears appears appears; appears appears
)(Ex.D1) ram and father’s
also name name
appears doesn’t
appear
P.W.1 Name Nanu ram s/ Gopal s/o Name Name -not named
(Suppleme appears o ganesha Ravta Ram appears appears
ntary ram
Statement
)(Ex.D2)
PW.2 (161 Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Name Name
Statement S/O Nanu appears appears S/O appears appears
) ram and Rugharam
also name
appears
P.W.2 Name Nanu ram s/ Gopal s/o Name Name -not named
(Suppleme appears o ganesha Ravta Ram appears appears
ntary ram
Statement
)(Ex.D3)
PW.4 (161 Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Name Name
Statement S/O Nanu appears appears S/O appears appears
)(Ex.D6) ram and Rugharam
also name
appears
PW.1 Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Dhula ram Name
(Bayan S/O Nanu appears appears S/O S/O Jetha appears
Gavah) ram and Rugharam ram and
also name and also also Name
appears name appears
appears
PW.2 Only name Only name Only name Rameshwar Only name Only name
(Bayan appears appears appears S/O appears appears
Gavah) Rugharam
PW.3(Baya Name only name only name only name only name only name
n Gavah) appears appears appears appears appears appears
PW.4(Baya Lichu ram Name Name Rameshwar Only name Name
n Gavah) S/O Nanu appears appears S/O appears and appears
ram and Rugharam Name
name and appears
appears Rameshwar and also
s/o Hira Dhula ram
Ram S/O Jetha
ram(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (9 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
8. This Court finds that the name of the applicant-appellant
Lichu Ram s/o Dungar Ram, cannot be found in the FIR (dated
21.07.2008), the statements u/s 161 (dated 21.07.2008) Cr.P.C.
and supplementary statement of prosecution witness and
informant, Ashunath (PW.3), rather, the name that consistently
appeared in the above mentioned documents was of Lichu Ram
son of Nanu Ram. However, subsequently, the name of the present
applicant-appellant Lichu Ram also appeared along with Lichu Ram
s/o Nanu Ram in the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also
supplementary statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 and their
witness testimonies, which were recorded at a later stage. The
possibility of over-implication and addition of the name of the
applicant-appellant cannot be ruled out, in light of the discrepancy
and contradiction with respect to the basic element of the name
and the identity of the accused between the FIR, statements u/s
161 Cr.P.C., and witness testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
mentioned above.
9. This Court further finds that no allegations were leveled
against the applicant-appellant Rameshwar Lal s/o Hari Ram, and
the name of the said applicant-appellant also did not appear in the
FIR, statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4,
rather the name that consistently appeared was of Rameshwar s/o
Rugharam. It was only at a subsequent stage of recording the
supplementary statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW.1 and PW.2, that
the name of the applicant-appellant started appearing.
10. This Court also finds that the name of applicant-appellant
Dula Ram s/o Imrtaram did not appear in FIR dated 21.07.2008,
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (10 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
however, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW.3, who was also the
informant, were recorded on the same date of the incident and
FIR, i.e., on 21.07.2008, mentions the name of Dula Ram s/o
Imrtaram, categorically. Furthermore, the name of Dula Ram s/o
Imrtaram has been consistently appearing in the statements u/s
161 Cr.P.C. of PW.1, PW.2, and PW.4 as well as in their witness
testimonies. Thus, there is no contradiction with respect to
statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimonies before the learned
Trial Court.
11. This Court further finds that the names of applicant-
appellants Nanu Ram s/o Mota Ram, Gopal Ram s/o Imrtaram and
Bhera Ram s/o Ratna Ram, consistently appeared in the FIR
(dated 21.07.2008), the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW.1, PW.2,
PW.3, and PW.4, and their subsequent testimonies before the
learned Trial Court. Therefore, the possibility of there being an
afterthought and over implication, while including their respective
names, is ruled out.
12. This Court also finds that the following recoveries were made
at the instance of the applicant-appellants, details whereof are set
out as hereunder:
Ex.P. 38 Bhera Ram Lathi
Ex.P. 48 Lichu Ram s/o Dungar Ram Lathi
Ex.P. 55 Gopal Ram s/o Imrtaram Iron Rod
Ex.P. 65 Rameshwar s/o Hari Ram Lathi
Ex.P. 142 Dula Ram Lathi
Ex.P. 144 Nanu Ram Lathi
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (11 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
12.1.This Court further finds that on perusal of the F.S.L. report
(Ex.P. 141) it cannot be concluded that the human blood found on
the aforementioned recoveries is that of the deceased persons.
13. This Court further finds that there is discrepancy with respect
to the identity of the applicant-appellants, namely, Lichu Ram
son of Dungar Ram and Rameshwar Lal s/o Hari Ram, and
thus, their over implication in this case cannot be ruled out at this
stage. Moreover, the hearing of the appeal may take substantial
time, therefore, in light of the peculiar factual matrix of the case,
the discussion hereinbefore, and the order of this Hon’ble Court in
Mamraj vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Crl. Misc. Susp. Of
Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1532/2023, decided on
05.04.2024) this Court finds it a fit case to allow the suspension of
the sentence of the said applicant-appellant.
14. This Court also finds that looking into the nature of crime in
question and the evidence on the basis of which, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by
the learned Trial Court, the contentions raised on behalf of the
applicant-appellants, namely Nanu Ram s/o Mota Ram, Gopal
Ram s/o Imrtaram, Dula Ram s/o Imrtaram and Bhera
Ram s/o Ratna Ram do not induce confidence of this Court at
this stage, so as to grant indulgence of suspension of sentence to
the applicants-appellants. Furthermore, the factual matrix and
discussion hereinbefore, the case of the said applicant-appellants
do not fall in parity with the order of this Court in Mamraj vs.
State of Rajasthan (D.B. Crl. Misc. Susp. Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 1532/2023, decided on 05.04.2024).
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (12 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
14.1.This Court further finds that apart from the above, the
custody period of the applicant-appellants, namely Nanu Ram s/o
Mota Ram, Gopal Ram s/o Imrtaram, Dula Ram s/o Imrtaram and
Bhera Ram s/o Ratna Ram is not sufficient so as to suspend the
sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants by the learned Trial
Court, at this stage.
14.2.Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend
the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellants Nanu Ram s/o
Mota Ram, Gopal Ram s/o Imrtaram, Dula Ram s/o
Imrtaram and Bhera Ram s/o Ratna Ram in this case.
15. Consequently, the application for suspension of
sentence no. 658/2024 preferred by Lichu Ram s/o Dungar
Ram is allowed. Furthermore, the application for suspension
of sentence no. 513/2023 is allowed only qua applicant-
appellant Rameshwar Lal s/o Hari Ram, while dismissing
the same qua Nanu Ram s/o Mota Ram, Gopal Ram s/o
Imrtaram and Dula Ram s/o Imrtaram. Further, the
application for suspension of sentence no. 937/2023
preferred by Bhera Ram s/o Ratna Ram is dismissed.
15.1. It is thus ordered that substantive sentence passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case
No.11/2022 (Old Case No.233/2008), against the appellants-
applicants, namely, Lichu s/o Dungar Ram (SOS
No.658/2024) and Rameshwar Lal s/o Hari Ram (SOS
No.513/2023), shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25154-DB] (13 of 13) [SOSA-658/2024]
of them 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 his appearance in this Court on 03.07.2025 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:
1. That they will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they 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.
15.2. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicants were 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.
15.3. It is however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove, would not prejudice the case of the applicants-
appellants in the appeal, on merits.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link