Lokesh vs State

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred by the applicant-appellant Lokesh, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 08.01.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.63/2013 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default in paymet of fine further to undergo six months' rigirous imprisonment.

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

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely perused the evidence available on record.

The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstancial evidence viz. last seen and recovery. The witness who gave evidence of having lastly seen the deceased Takhat Singh in the company of the accused was Durjan Singh (PW-21). On a careful perusal of his testimony, it is apparent that he claims to have seen the appellant and the co-accused Gaurav in company of the deceased some time before he was murdered. However, as per the evidence of Durjan Singh, he had seen these two boys at the house of the deceased and the ladies of the house were allegedly serving them tea and food etc. On a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is apparent that no female relative of the deceased stated anything which can corroborate the assertion of Durjan Singh that the two boys (the appellant and Gaurav) came to the house of the deceased or took him away under the pretext of procuring a thrasher on the day of the incident. Furthermore, Durjan Singh was present at the spot soon after dead body of Takhat Singh was recovered. He admittedly, did not tell the police officers that he had ever seen either of the appellants or some unknown boys with the deceased. A knife and blood stained clothes were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. However, as per the evidence of the Medical Jurist PW-13 Dr. Piyush Soni, all the injuries which proved fatal were inflicted on the facial area of the deceased by a blunt weapon. The knife recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant Lokesh did not give result for presence of any particular blood group. Though, it is true that clothes of the accused-appellant were found stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased but whether the said solitary circumstance would prove sufficient for affirming the guilt of the accused would have to be seen when the appeal is being finally decided. The co-assued Gaurav whom the witness Durjan Singh identified in the test identification parade as well as in the Court, stands acquitted by the impugned judgment. Thus, we are duly satisfied that appellant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. The appellant is in custody for last about eight years. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant deserves indulgence of bail during the 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 sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur vide judgment dated 08.01.2019 in Sessions Case No.63/2013 against the appellant-applicant Lokesh S/o Mangi Lal Soni, 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.80,000/- with two sureties of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.10.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

That he 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 will give in writing his 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.