Kishan Singh And Ors vs State

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences.

Heard on the application for suspension of sentences.

Perused the material available on record.

Learned Counsel Shri Devendra Mahalana representing the applicants-appellants urges that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The accused and the complainant party indulged in a free fight. There is no specific allegation whatsoever against the accused-appellants of having inflicted any particular injury to the deceased. The two injured eye-witnesses PW.1 Jawan Singh and PW.2 Hazari Singh have attributed omnibus allegations to as many as five male assailants and two female assailants of having assaulted Mithu Singh of whom, one was not charge-sheeted and two have been acquitted. He further contended that the appellant Nepal Singh was not even named by the witness Jawan Singh (PW.1) in his examination-in-chief. He further submits that the medical jurist Dr. Surendra Singh (PW.14), who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) did not even opine that any of the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or they could be inflicted by the weapons attributed to the applicants-appellants by the eye-witnesses. He further contended that total of four injuries were noticed on the person of deceased Mithu Singh whereas the number of assailants named by the witnesses is six and thus, it is an obvious case of over-implication. He further contended that two women who were attributed identical role in the testimony of the eye-witnesses have been acquitted. Hence, he prayed that the applicants-appellants deserve indulgence of bail, during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned defence counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the medical jurist Dr. Surendra Singh (PW.14) did not opine in his sworn testimony that any of injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On perusing the statement of medical jurist Dr. Surendra Surana (PW.14), we are of the opinion that the Public Prosecutor who got recorded the statement of the witness acted with sheer negligence and the trial court also failed to take note of the fact that proper elaboration was not made in his evidence regarding the nature and number of injuries caused to the deceased.

Be that as it may. The eye-witnesses have attributed omnibus allegations to six accused in their testimony. The two women accused to whom similar role was assigned have been acquitted. The grievous head injury inflicted to the deceased is not specifically attributed to any of the applicants-appellants.

In this background, we are of the view that the appellants have available to them, strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction. Hearing of the apeal is likely to consume time. Thus, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants by the trial court,during pendency of appeal.

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 24.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.12/2015 (CIS No.23/15) against the appellants-applicants (1) Kishan Singh S/o Shri Keshar Singh (2) Anna Singh S/o Shri Keshar Singh & (3) Nepal Singh @ Shri Tulsa Singh S/o Shri Kump Singh 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 26.09.2019 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.