Peerdutt @ Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan

The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.85/2016 (CIS No.81/2016):

Offences

Sentences

Fine

Section 498A IPC

3 Years’ R.I.

Rs.10,000/- in default of which to further undergo 3 Months’ S.I.

Section 304B IPC

Life Imprisonment.

Rs.10,000/- in default of which to further undergo 3 Months’ S.I.

The instant application for suspension of sentences has been moved on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to release him on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Nishant Motsara, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel representing the complainant and, have gone through the impugned Judgment and the record.

We find that the appellant-applicant herein is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased Smt. Sunita who was married to the accused Jasram in the year 2010. Smt. Sunita expired by burn injury in the matrimonial home on 29.06.2016 whereafter, the criminal case in form of FIR No.142/2016 came to be registered at Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh. The appellant, his mother Smt. Dhapa Devi and brother Jasram (husband of the deceased) were convicted by the trial court vide impugned Judgment dated 05.04.2022. Whilst the appellant-applicant herein and the accused Jasram were sentenced to Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC, the accused Dhapa Devi was sentenced to 7 Years’ R.I. on the same charge. A perusal of the record confirms the submission advanced by the appellant’s counsel that the deceased was suffering from psychiatric issues long before her death and was under treatment. This fact was stated by Dr. Sukhveer Singh (PW-8) in his evidence. It is the specific plea of the defence that Smt. Sunita committed suicide as she was afflicted by the psychiatric ailment since long. On going through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses Dayaram (PW- 1) father of the deceased, Raghuveer (PW-2) her brother and Kalawati (PW-3) her mother, we find significant contradiction in their versions in regard to the allegation of demand of dowry soon before the death of Smt. Sunita. The appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. The sentences awarded to the accused appellant Dhapa Devi have been suspended by this Court vide 06.05.2022. The appellant applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. Hearing of the is unlikely in the near future.

In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail while suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court, 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 Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 05.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.85/2016 (CIS No.81/2016) against the appellant-applicant Peerdutt @ Jagdish, 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 17.10.2022 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.