Narpatram 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 for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pokaran, District Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.42/2017.

The contention of Shri Meghwal, while seeking suspension of sentences awarded to the appellant, is that there is no allegation whatsoever in the statements of any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused harassed or humiliated his wife Smt. Ramku (the deceased) on account of demand of dowry. He urges that the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant only for the offence under Section 304B IPC. No witness of the prosecution stated that the accused was seen setting the deceased to fire. He further urges that the accused himself appeared in defence and gave positive evidence to the effect that his wife set herself to fire. He tried to douse the flames on which, he himself received burn injuries. He drew the Court's attention to the cross-examination conducted from the appellant by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wherein, a suggestion was given that the deceased set herself to fire. He thus urges that ex-facie the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC will not survive against the appellant and hence, he deserves indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses examined at the trial stated that the accused ever demanded any particular item of dowry from the deceased Smt. Ramku. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The accused himself received burns in the incident involving death of his wife Smt. Ramku by fire and appeared in the defence claiming that he tried to douse the flames.

In this background, we are of the view that the applicant appellant has available to him strong grounds so as to assail his conviction and thus, it is considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during pendency of the 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 the Additional Sessions Judge Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, vide judgment dated 22.02.2018 in Sessions Case No. 42/2017 against the appellant-applicant Narpatram, 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 28.03.2019 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.