Smt Rajudi @ Raju Bai vs State

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences. He proposes to argue the matter orally.

Heard on the application for suspension of sentences.

Perused the material available on record.

Shri Deora, learned counsel representing the accused applicant vehemently and fervently urges that there is no evidence worth the name on record of the case so as to connect the accused applicant with the crime. The incident involves blind murder of Mangilal, with whom the accused applicant was previously married. Admittedly, the accused applicant had gone into Nata Marriage with the co-accused Shankar. He submits that the case of the prosecution is that despite having contracted Nata marriage with co-accused Shankar, the applicant was continuing her relationship with Mangilal and as per him, if at all there was any truth in this allegation, manifestly, the applicant would be having no motive so as to commit the murder of Mangilal. He contends that the mobile phone and rings which were recovered during investigation on the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act have not been connected with the deceased in any manner. He further submits that as per the FSL report, the blood group of the deceased could not be established. Thus, as per him, despite there being no plausible and tangible evidence available on record, the trial court has whimsically connected the accused applicant with the crime. 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 the learned counsel representing the accused appellant. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the rings and mobile phone recovered at the instance of the accused appellant could not be linked with the deceased Mangilal because no witness has identified the same to of his ownership.

In this background, we feel that the applicant has available to her, strong grounds so as to challenge her conviction as recorded by the trial court. 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 No.5, Udaipur vide judgment dated 18.09.2018 in Sessions Case No.15/2016 (CIS No.31/2016) against the appellant-applicant Smt. Rajudi @ Raju Bai W/o Shri Mangilal Gameti shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she 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 her appearance in this Court on 12.04.2019 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.