[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajendra @ Raju vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 604/2024
1. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Balram, Aged 33 Years, R/o Kotdi, P.s.
Chechat, Dist. Kota, (Raj.).
2. Shaitan Dhakad s/o Phoolchand, aged 43 years, r/o Laadpura,
P.S. Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
3. Ramnathi Bai w/o Balram, aged 53 years,r/o Kotdi, P.S.
Chechat, District Kota (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Begun, Dist. Chittorgarh and are
under process to Shift at Central Jail, Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
Reserved on 08/04/2025
Pronounced on 12/05/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The applicants-appellants have preferred this application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., as awarded to
them vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 62/2021
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024](29/2016), whereby the applicants-appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence In Default of
payment of fine
further undergo
302 of I.P.C. Life imprisonment One year's additional
with fine of simple imprisonment
Rs.50,000/- (each of
the applicants)
324 of I.P.C. Simple imprisonment Six months'
for three years with additional simple
fine of Rs.5,000/- imprisonment
(each of the
applicants)
342 of I.P.C. Simple imprisonment One month's
for one year with fine additional simple
of Rs.1,000/- (each imprisonment
of the applicants)
2. In connection with an incident dated 23.03.2016, wherein a
lady named Smt.Indra Bai (complainant) was set on fire, an FIR
bearing No.59/2016 was registered at Police Station-Rawatbhata,
District Chittorgarh on 24.03.2016, for the offences under
Sections 342, 324, 307 & 34 of IPC against the present
applicants-appellants. However, since Smt. Indra Bai passed away
during her treatment in MBS Hospital, Kota, therefore, after
investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the
applicants-appellants under Sections 342, 324 and 302 I.P.C, and
accordingly charges were framed. Subsequently, after due
proceedings, the trial commenced and after conclusion of the trial,
the applicants-appellants were convicted and sentenced vide the
impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2024, as above.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that
the deceased was burnt because of falling into Holika Dahan
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024](ceremony held during Holi festival), and the applicant-appellants
had no role in the said incident. It was submitted that applicants-
appellants tried to save the deceased by getting her clothes
changed at the house of applicant-appellant No.2.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no reliable
evidence on record which could connect the applicant-appellants
with the crime in question. It was submitted that the Parcha
Bayan, which the learned Trial Court took into consideration while
passing the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2024, cannot be
read into evidence as it was not recorded in presence of a
Magistrate, even when Smt. Indra died after 22 days of the
alleged incident. Furthermore, the police officer who recorded the
said Parcha Bayan and the Doctor who gave the fitness certificate
were not examined.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the testimony of witness
P.W.1-Ramesh Chandra (husband of deceased) reveals that
admittedly, deceased did not disclose anything to the said witness,
and witness P.W.6 Shrawan Kumar (son of deceased) was declared
hostile during the trial. It was further submitted that the
depositions made by P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.12 who, as per the
applicants-appellants were the independent witnesses, also
supports the case of the applicants-appellants, more particularly,
looking into the material contradictions in the depositions made by
the other prosecution witnesses.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the record reveals a
variance with respect to the date of sending the samples to
Forensic Science Laboratory. EX.P.9 mentions the date as
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024]
09.06.2016, while EX.P.11 mentions the date to be 21.06 2016,
and thus, the possibility of tampering of the samples could not
have been ruled out.
3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicants-
appellants were on bail during trial, they are in custody for last
more than one year, and 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
counsel, the sentences as awarded to the applicants-appellants by
the learned Trial Court deserves to be suspended, during
pendency of the appeal.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the
aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicants-
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 applicants-
appellants.
4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Parcha
Bayan (EX.P.02) dated 24.03.2016 was recorded by a Sub
Inspector, after the certificate of fitness was given by a competent
doctor, and the said statement was given in presence of the
husband of the deceased, Ramchandra Sen (P.W.1). It was
submitted that in the said Parcha Bayan, the deceased revealed
that on 23.03.2016 at around 11 p.m. when she was returning
from Holika Dahan, the applicant-appellant No.1 and 3 grabbed
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024]
her and took her to the house of the applicant appellant No.2,
where she was set on fire.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Ramesh
Chandra (P.W. 1) i.e. husband of deceased, stated in his police
statements that the deceased told him about the incident of
burning when she returned, and she stated that the present
applicants-appellants were responsible for burning her. It was
submitted that in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, held during
the trial of the case, has corroborated with the statements made
in the aforementioned Parcha Bayan.
4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that during the
investigation, the inspection report of the spot of incident (the
house of applicant-appellant no. 2) was made, which indicated
that burned clothes, pieces of bangles and burnt plastic paal was
found at the spot, and the same were seized by the police.
4.4. It was further submitted that at the instance of applicant-
appellant No.2, a kerosene bottle used to burn the deceased was
found, and in pursuance of the said recovery, a Recovery Report
(EX.P. 5) was prepared, which reveals that a bottle filled with
kerosene was found within the house of applicant-appellant No. 2.
Furthermore, the FSL report reveals that the clothes of the
deceased had traces of kerosene, which would not have been
possible had the deceased fell into the fire ceremony at the Holi
festival.
4.5. 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
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024]
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. Moreover, looking into the grave nature of the
crime and period of custody undergone by the applicants-
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. This Court finds that the applicants-appellants were convicted
by the learned Trial Court in connection with an incident, during
the course of which, Smt. Indra (deceased) was set on fire, and
after investigation, the applicants-appellants were found involved
in the said crime.
7. This Court further finds learned Trial Court after due
consideration of the factual matrix and the evidences such as the
Parcha Bayan(EX.P.2) given by the deceased; the recoveries made
pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused; the
testimony of Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1); the seizure of the pieces
bangle, clothes (which as per the FSL report have traces of
Kerosene); Naksha Mauka asserting the place of burning of
deceased to be the house of applicant appellant no. 2, has arrived
at the conclusion of the guilt of the applicant-appellants.
8. 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
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20834-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-604/2024]
the learned Trial Court, the contention raised on behalf of the
applicants-appellants as to the contradictions alleged to have
occurred in the evidence, do not induce confidence of this Court at
this stage, so as to grant indulgence of suspension of sentence to
the applicants-appellants.
9. This Court further finds that apart from the above, the
custody period of the applicants-appellants is not sufficient so as
suspend the sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants by the
learned Trial Court, at this stage.
10. Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend
the sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants in this case.
11. Consequently, the present application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any
observation made hereinabove, would not prejudice the case of
the applicants-appellants in the appeal, on merits.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:33:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link