Ajay @ Vijay And Ors vs State And Ors

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the applications for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri B.S. Rathore, Advocate representing the appellant Ajay @ Vijay and Shri Pradeep Shah, Advocate representing the appellant Rahul @ Gajendra and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

The FIR was registered on the basis of the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/17) of the victim Sonaram who was admitted at the Government Hospital, Jalore on 03.05.2018. In this Parcha Bayan, which was rightly treated to be the dying declaration, Sonaram alleged that he was called by Jogaram Harijan over mobile and was asked to reach at the Truck Union Office. When the victim reached the Truck Union Office, Jogaram Harijan and his two companions were already waiting there armed with knife and lathies. They accosted Sonaram with the weapons held by them and hit him indiscriminately due to which, he got injured and fell down. Akhtar and Bharat Chundawat intended to save the victim. They boarded him in a vehicle and took him to the hospital where he passed away. The appellants-applicants were not named in this statement. Akhtar Hussain (PW.3) and Bharat Kumar (PW.4), the two prosecution eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution  case and were declared hostile. Thus, there is no direct evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. They have been implicated in this case only on the basis of the blood stained recoveries. Whether or not such blood stained recoveries would be sufficient to affirm the guilt of the appellants would be for this Court to examine when the appeal is finally decided. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.

In this background but without commenting on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the accused-appellants by the trial court, during pendency of appeal.

Accordingly, both applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 30.01.2020 in Sessions Case No.17/2018 (CIS No.62/2018) against the appellants-applicants Ajay @ Vijay S/o Shri Santosh Kumar and Rahul @ Gajendra S/o Shri Narpat shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 07.09.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.