Imran vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Application No. 391/2018 has been filed by accused-applicants Imran, Ashfak and Mushtu and Application No. 355/2018 has been filed by accused-

applicants Rahees and Rafiq seeking suspension of sentence awarded to them by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants argued that the trial court has convicted co-accused Shakeel for offence under Section 302 IPC

simplicitor whereas all other accused have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel

referred to statements of Fakira (P.W.1); Muddin (P.W.2); Rahees (P.W.4); Mammu (P.W.5); Mustkeem (P.W.8) and Muheed (P.W.11), eye

witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that except Fakira (P.W.1); Muddin (P.W.2); Rahees (P.W.4), whose

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on the very next day of the incident i.e. on 11.11.2010, statements of Mammu (P.W.5) was

recorded belatedly on 18.11.2010; Mustkeem (P.W.8) on 22.11.2010; Muheed (P.W.11) on 23.11.2010. These three witnesses, whose statements

were subsequently recorded, have by way of improvement alleged that after the first blow of ‘dhariya’ was caused on the head of the deceased

by Shakeel, Rahees and Rafiq also inflicted injuries to the deceased on his head by lathies. When Fakira (P.W.1); Muddin (P.W.2); Rahees (P.W.4)

were confronted with their previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the Court, they could not dispute this fact that therein they did not state

so. Learned counsel submitted that accused-applicants were on bail pending trial, therefore, mere pendency of criminal cases prior to the incident in

the present case should not be a reason for not extending them benefit of suspension of sentence pending appeal, hearing of which is likely to take a

long. It is argued that three injuries were shown on the person of the deceased when his MLR (Exhibit P-7) were prepared by Dr. Dashrath Singh

(P.W.3). As per post mortem report (Exhibit P-23), injury no. 3 has been opined to be grevious and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of

nature and other injuries were opined to be simple in nature.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the applications and submitted that allegation of causing first injury with

‘dhariya’ on the head of the deceased is made against Shakeel, but all the aforementioned eye witnesses are consistent in saying that Rahees

thereafter caused second head injury by lathi followed by Rafiq, who caused third head injury again by lathi. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

there is no injury by ‘dhariya’ on the person of the deceased whereas prosecution witnesses are consistent in alleging that it was Shakeel, who

caused first injury but at the same time all the eye witnesses are also consistent in saying that second and third injuries were caused on the person of

the deceased by Rahees and Rafiq and there are three injuries on head by blunt weapon. Mushtu opened fire too. It is alleged that rest of the accused

intimidated the members of complainant party. Learned Public submitted that accused-applicants AshfaK and Mushtu have number of previous

criminal cases of similar nature registered against them.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the accused-applicants, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the complainant and considering antecedents

of the accused-applicants, we find that in the details of criminal antecedents provided by the learned Public Prosecutor with the reply to application for

suspension of sentence, it is shown that accused-applicant Ashfak, apart from this case, had only three cases registered against him whereas chart of

antecedents, which form part of charge sheet indicates that Ashfak had total 15 cases. Similarly, in the case of details of cases that has been placed

on record by learned Public Prosecutor, accused-applicant Mushtu has total 10 cases registered against him. Ashfak and Mushtu are both real

brothers being son of Afsar, who is still facing trial against whom also as per the chart of antecedents filed with the charge sheet, there are 14 cases

registered against him. Argument that accused-applicants Ashfak and Mushtu have been acquitted in some of the cases, may not be a reason to grant

them indulgence of suspension of sentence especially when in all such cases, acquittal has been given on the basis of compromise. Therefore, without

expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are persuaded to suspend the sentence of accused-applicants Imran, Rahees and Rafiq. However,

we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the accused-applicants Ashfk and Mushtu.

It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of accused-applicant namely (1) Imran son of Afsar; (2) Rahees son of Chhammu; and (3) Rafiq son of

Ramjani shall remain suspended till disposal of their appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court to the effect that each of them shall appear

before this court on 08.06.2018 and as and when called upon to do so.

Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 391/2018 qua accused-applicant Imran stands allowed, however, the same qua accused-applicants

Ashfak and Mushtu is dismissed. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 355/2018 is allowed. Superintendent of Police, Karauli is directed to

take appropriate action against S.H.O. concerned who furnished incorrect particulars of antecedents to mislead this Court.

Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of connected application.

A copy of this order be forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Karauli for needful.