Radhyshyam vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No.02/2014 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 307 of IPC and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections 325, 323 and 341 of IPC.

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. He further submits that there was no intent to kill the victim rather the incident took place in a spur of moment. Neither the circumstances of the case nor the injuries received by the victim bringing the case within the arena of Section 307 of IPC. He drew the attention of this Court on the injury report in which the injury No.1 has been opined to be grievous in nature but the same was not found to be dangerous to life. It is further submitted that the expert opinion should be affirmed, definite and conclusive in nature and the same should not be bald, evasive and confusing. He was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Here in this case, doctor had opined that if the patient had not been treated within time, the injury could have been proved dangerous. In this regard, it is argued that the said opinion does not come within the ambit of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act. In the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the prosecution would not travel beyond Section 324 of IPC.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the facts that the accused-appellant was on bail during the course of trial and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time and considering the overall submissions while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.

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 learned Additional Session Judge, Raisinghnagar who passed the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 in Sessions Case No. 02/2014 against the appellant-applicant- Radhyshyam S/o Kashiram 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 18.09.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

(1) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

(2) That if the applicant 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.

(3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.