Jai Ram And Ors vs State, Through P.P

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel Shri Udawat submits that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The applicants-appellants were not named as assailants in the FIR (Ex.P/9), which was lodged by Mahendra Singh, son of the deceased Smt. Sukhi Devi. Even in the first 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the star prosecution witness PW.3 Ramkanya (Ex.D/1), only Hukma Ram was named as an assailant. The Investigating Officer did not file charge-sheet against any accused other than Hukma Ram. The subsequent statement of Ramkanya was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as late as on 21.11.2012 wherein she named 14 persons as assailants who allegedly killed her mother Smt. Sukhi Devi. Thus, Shri Udawat urges that the applicants-appellants who were not charge-sheeted in this case deserve indulgence of bail during appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri B.R. Bishnoi, Advocate representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by applicants-appellants' counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the applicants herein were not named in the FIR. It is virtually an admitted position that while filing application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. based on highly belated statement of the so-called eyewitness Ramkanya under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prayer was made by the complainant to summon only four persons Dharma Ram, Jai Ram, Mangla Ram and Narayan Lal as additional accused.

However, the trial court did not accept the said prayer as such and Dharma Ram and Narayan Lal were not summoned and instead the applicants herein were summoned to face trial alongwith charge-sheeted accused Hukma Ram by order dated 05.06.2013.

Though, any comments on the veracity of the evidence of the so-called eyewitness Ramkanya is not warranted at this stage but on going through her evidence, it is apparent that even while deposing on oath, she has attributed specific allegations only to the accused Madan Lal, Hukma Ram and Mangla Ram. Thus, at this stage, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants Madan Lal and Mangla Ram. It may be noted here that no application for suspension of sentences has been filed on behalf of accused Hukma Ram.

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Cases, Pali vide judgment dated 05.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.32/2014 against the appellants-applicants (1) Jai Ram S/o Shri Rawat Ram, (2) Banshi Lal S/o Shri Ganesh Ram, (3) Bagduri W/o Madan Lal, (4) Narbada W/o Banshi Lal and (5) Budha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 24.10.2019 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.