Ratan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

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

The appellant-accused is the Uncle-in-law (maternal) of the deceased. He has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2018 by recording findings that the appellant-accused, Smt. Paras Kunwar (mother-in-law) and Pappunath @ Narayan Nath (husband) of the deceased Smt. Paras forced her to consume liquor in which organic phosphorus compound had been mixed and thereby caused her death.

Shri Poonia learned counsel representing the appellant-accused submits that it is impossible to conceive and believe that organo phosphorus compound which gives a strong pungent odour, could have been mixed in alcohol and given to the deceased for consumption because it is quite impossible that deceased would fail to notice the pungent smell and foul taste of the compound, had the same be mixed in liquor. As per Shri Poonia it is a clearly a case of suicidal consumption of organo phosphorus insecticide by the deceased and the appellant-accused was wrongly held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana in Appeal (Crl.) 705/2001 decided on 01.10.2002 He thus prays that the instant application for suspension of sentence deserves to be accepted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the appellant's counsel. He has advanced oral arguments and has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentence.

We have heard and considered the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. The contention of Shri Poonia that no person can be forcibly or unknowingly made to consume organo phosphorus compound which has very pungent odour is not without merit. Be that as it may. The appellant-applicant is the uncle-in-law (maternal) of the deceased. The sentence awarded to Smt. Paras Kunwar (mother-in-law) has been suspended by this Court. In this background, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur, vide judgment dated 05.04.2018 in Sessions Case No.186/2013 (CIS No.1302/2015) against the appellant-applicant Ratan Singh S/o Sh. Basant @ Vasan Singh 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 11.01.2019 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.