Iiamudeen @ Asimudeen vs State Of Rajasthan

The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Ilamudeen @

Asimudeen S/o Umardeen, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC vide the judgment dated

30.09.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.21/2010.

Learned Public Prosecutor has been given ample opportunity, but he has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentence and

proposes to argue the matter orally.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Mr. Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently contends that there is no evidence worth the

name on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. He submits that the appellant was married to Smt. Hakiman about 20

years ago. Four children were born from the wedlock. No dispute ever arose between the husband and the wife, which could spur the appellant to

murder Smt. Hakiman. He urges that the prime prosecution witnesses Ramjo (P.W.1) and Munna (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case. The

unfortunate incident, wherein Smt. Hakiman, as a matter of fact, fell down and received a head injury, which proved fatal, took place on 06.05.2010.

The maternal family members were intimated, who reached the house of the appellant and the burial of the dead body was made in their presence.

Thereafter the complainant Ibrahim (P.W.4) developed an ill motive and upon being instigated by some persons inimical to the appellant, the belated

FIR (Ex.P/6) came to be registered on 10.05.2010. He urges that the Medical Jurist, Dr. Mehram Mahiya (P.W.9) admitted in his cross-examination

that the head injury noticed on the dead body of Smt. Hakiman could be the result of a fall on a hard surface. He, thus, submits that the appellant, who

was on bail during the course of trial, deserves the same indulgence during the pendency of the appeal.

The learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

However, he too does not dispute the fact that the star prosecution witnesses Ramjo (P.W.1), sister of the deceased) and Munna (P.W.3), brother of

the accused-appellant, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.

There is ample evidence on the record of the case to show that when Smt. Hakiman expired, her maternal family members, including the complainant

Ibrahim, were intimated. They reached the house of the appellant and the burial of the dead body was carried out in the presence of the maternal

relatives, who made no objection at that time. The Medical Jurist Dr. Mehram Mahiya (P.W.9) admitted in his cross-examination that the head injury,

which proved fatal to Hakiman, could be the result of fall on a hard surface. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so

granted to him There is no allegation of the prosecution that relations of the appellant and his wife Hakiman, the deceased, who were married to each

other for 17 to 18 years, were strained. None of the four children of the appellant and the deceased, who could have given clinching testimony, was

examined in support of the prosecution case.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of

indulgence of bail to the appellant- applicant by suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.21/2010 against the appellant-applicant

Ilamudeen @ Asimudeen S/o Umardeen 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.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 25.03.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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 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 purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case

the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of

bail.