Dharam Pal @ Dharma vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences.

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

Learned counsel Mr. T.C. Sharma urges that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant-applicant was married to the deceased Sanpati about 20 years ago. The death of Sanpati was accidental. She was sitting besides the appellant-applicant on a tractor. She accidentally fell down and came under the tyre of the tractor. The incident took place on 22.7.2015 and FIR came to be lodged on 23.7.2015. The evidence of the star prosecution witness PW-6 Kalu Ram is not reliable because he is a chance witness and there was no occasion for him to come in the field where the accident took place. Mr. Sharma further submits that the appellant-applicant's major son Basant supported the defence theory when he was examined as DW-1. Mr. Sharma further urges that allegation of the prosecution witnesses that the accused-applicant repeatedly drove the tractor over the deceased is not corroborated by the medical evidence as deposed by PW-12 Dr. Ajay Prakash Choudhary. He thus urges that the accused-appellant, who is in custody for the last more than four and half years, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of this appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the FIR came to be registered on the next day of the incident.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the theory put forth by the prosecution that the accused-appellant repeatedly drove the tractor over the deceased is not corroborated by the medical evidence, the accused appellant is in custody for the last more than four and half years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanujmangarh, vide judgment dated 07.04.2017 in Sessions Case No.40/2015 against the appellant-applicant Dharam Pal @ Dharma S/o Shri Ramjilal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 16.03.2020 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.