Kishna vs State Of Rajasthan

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

Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and the material

available on record.

The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.30/2017 (13/2017) (CIS No.32/2017).

Learned counsel Shri Surana representing the applicant appellant urges that the case is of blind murder. The FIR was lodged by Ratna Ram to the

SHO, Police Station Abu Road Sadar on 31.03.2017 alleging that the Pujari Mangalgiri, who was appointed to offer prayers, etc. at the

Varmaneshwar Mahadev Temple, had been assaulted by four young people and these assailants allegedly, looted the valuables of the Pujari. Shri

Surana urges that the appellant was arrested without there being any evidence on the record so as to connect him with the alleged crime. The

investigating officer claims to have recovered some personal documents of Mangalgiri viz. two registration certificates, a driving licence, two identity

cards, a diary, a notebook, etc. in furtherance of the information provided by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He submits that the

incident took place on 31.03.2017 whereas, the accused appellant was arrested as late as on 02.05.2017 and the recovery of the worthless documents

was effected on 03.05.2017. He urges that it is impossible to believe that despite availability of ample time and opportunity, the accused would

preserve and conceal the worthless articles belonging to the deceased in his own house so that the same could be recovered later. He further submits

that the recovery is highly doubtful because no independent motibir was associated in the proceedings and only two police constables were made to

stand as the Panch witness. He contends that apart from recovery of these worthless articles, there is no evidence whatsoever on the entire record so

as to connect the accused appellant with the alleged crime and hence, as per him, the appellant deserves indulgence of bail, during pendency of the

appeal.

Per contra, learned Public prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the appellant. However, he too is not in a

position to dispute the fact that the documents/ identity cards, etc. of the deceased which were shown to have been recovered at the instance of the

accused appellant, have no monetary worth whatsoever. The incident is of 31.03.2017 whereas, the recovery was effected as late as on 03.05.2017.

The accused was a free bird till 02.05.2017 when he was arrested. Both the motbirs, who were associated in the recovery proceedings, are police

constables.

In this background, we are of the view that the appellant has available to him, strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction.

Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. Thus, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the accused appellant by the trial court,

during pendency of the appeal.

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

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.30/2017 (13/2017) (CIS No.32/2017) against the appellant-

applicant Kishna S/o Bharta, 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/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in

this court on 26.08.2019 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 accuseds-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc.

Case related to original case in which the accuseds-applicants 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 accuseds applicants do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of

bail.