Bali vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

The instant second application for suspension of sentences has been preferred on behalf of the appellant applicant who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.34/2014:

Offences

Sentences

Fine

Fine Default sentences

Section 302/34 IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs.5,000/-

1 Months’ S.I.

The first application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2016.

It may be mentioned here that after dismissal of the first application for suspension of sentences, a period of nearly 6 years has passed but till date, the appeal could not be taken up for hearing.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record.

The factual aspect of the case is that the deceased Smt. Jumma was married to Shri Gopal son of the appellant about 15 years before the incident. Smt. Jumma received burn injuries on 01.09.2014 inside the matrimonial house and expired as a result thereof. The appellant and Gopal have been convicted for her murder. The prosecution case is based totally on inferences and the reverse burden of proof by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Having appreciated the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, we are of the opinion that qua the appellant, there is lack of evidence to show that she was present inside the house when the deceased received the fatal burn injuries.

In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available strong and plausible grounds to assail the impugned judgment. The appellant is a woman. She has suffered actual imprisonment of more than 8 years. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future.

Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances available on record and, considering the prolonged custody of the appellant and the bleak chances of early disposal of the appeal, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bhilwara, vide judgment dated 09.08.2016 in Sessions Case No.34/2014 against the appellant- applicant Smt. Bali, 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 the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 14.11.2022 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.