Jitendra vs State Of Rajasthan

This criminal suspension of sentence application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment

dated 16.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.54/2015 (CIS No.72/2015).

A complaint was lodged on 14.04.2015 by complainant Ramesh regarding an incident of 07.04.2015, alleging that his daughter, Smt. Rekha was

married to the present appellant/applicant Jitendra about twelve years ago and four children were born out of the said wedlock. It has further been

alleged that appellant/applicant-Jitendra set his wife Smt. Rekha afire on 07.04.2015 after pouring kerosene on her.

Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the matrimony of Jitendra and Smt.Rekha was peaceful and twelve years old. He further

submits that the conduct of the appellant/applicant to immediately take Smt. Rekha to the hospital for treatment shows his bonafide and innocence. He

also submits that the FIR itself has been lodged with a delay of seven days with no satisfactory explanation therefor.

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has taken this Court through the record, which clearly establishes that there was no smell of kerosene,

when body of Smt. Rekha was subjected to postmortem.

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further submits that the husband, Jitendra had taken his wife Smt. Rekha to the hospital for the best

possible treatment and all the ceremonies of her cremation and funeral took place at her husband’s house. As per learned counsel for the

appellant/applicant, the only testimony, on which the conviction has been made are that children of the couple, who were in the custody of their

maternal grandparents, cannot be said to be free from influence, and the possibility of their being tutored cannot be ruled out. He also submits that the

postmortem report did not contain any smell of kerosene.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing with the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for suspension of sentence.

A perusal of the testimony of the children as also the cross-examination suggests that Smt. Rekha was making tea and got burnt by accident.

Considering the fact that the postmortem report does not suggest presence of smell of kerosene, and the fact that the children, while deposing were in

the custody of the maternals, whether their evidence is trustworthy or not, cannot be decided at this stage. Moreover, the cross-examination of the

children also indicates loopholes, and there is no independent witness to the alleged incident. Further, the fact of the appellant/ applicant Jitendra taking

his wife Smt. Rekha immediately to the hospital for proper treatment is also on record.

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as aforementioned, and without commenting on the merits of the case, we are

inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences.

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

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, vide judgment dated 16.05.2018 in Sessions Case No.54/2015 (CIS No.72/2015) against the

appellant-applicant Jitendra S/o Nana Lala Manat, 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 17.03.2020 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.