Shaitan Ram vs State

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record.

Learned Counsel Shri Vishal Raj Mehta representing the applicant-appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case as against the applicant-appellant is false and fabricated. The dead body of deceased Smt Daku Devi was recovered on 03.05.2017. The accused-appellant, who was in custody in some other case, was arrested in the present case on 14.06.2017 through a production warrant and thereafter a 'Kanthi' alleged to be worn by the deceased Smt. Daku Devi, was shown to have been recovered on the basis of the information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer. He urged that there is a significant gap in the recovery of the Kanthi and the date of the incident and as such, no presumption can be drawn against the accused appellant that he was the person who murdered Smt. Daku Devi. He thus, craves acceptance of the instant application for suspension of sentences.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned defence counsel. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the recovery of the Kanthi is the sole circumstance on the basis whereof the prosecution has made an endeavour to bring home the charges against the accused appellant. It is also not disputed that the recovery of the Kanthi was effected after a month and fifteen days of the incident.

In this background and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court, during pendency of 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 learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 in Sessions Case No.11/2017 against the appellant-applicant Shaitan Ram S/o Mohanlal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes 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 26.09.2019 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.