Devnath @ Ratanlal vs State

Applicant-appellant has laid this second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. He was convicted by the learned trial Court for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and handed down sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000, and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for three months' simple imprisonment.

The first application for suspension of sentence was rejected by the Court on 14th of May, 2018. Arguing on this second application, it is submitted by Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant that applicant-appellant is in custody since last more than four years and final hearing of the main appeal at an early date is unlikely. He, therefore, submits that the prolonged custody of applicant, which is about four years, merits favourable consideration of his application for suspension of sentence. It is argued by learned counsel that the learned trial Court has completely overlooked serious contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecutrix while indicting the applicant for offence of rape. Learned counsel has also submitted that besides inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix, medical evidence and FSL report do not support her version. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the prosecution initially came out with a case of gang-rape against four accused persons including the applicant but then during trial no incriminating evidence was noticed against other accused persons and the prosecutrix has also changed her version by bailing out other accused persons Rama and Chhotu alias Anil. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel has urged that this sort of discrepancy in the testimony of prosecutrix has direct reflection on credibility of the witness, which ought to have been examined by the learned trial Court.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the overall fact scenario as well as prolonged custody of the applicant, I feel persuaded to accept this second application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Nimbeheda, District Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 22.04.2017, in Session Case No.42/2015 against applicant-appellant Devnath @ Ratanlal S/o Babaru, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a 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 30.09.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated below:-

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

That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed addresses 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 accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicant was 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 purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.