Vijendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred by the appellant Vijendra Singh seeking suspension of sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur vide judgment dated 16.7.2019 in Sessions Case No.19/2016 whereby, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months' additional imprisonment.

Learned Public Prosecutor has not chosen to file reply and proposes to argue the matter orally.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri R.K.Charan, learned counsel representing the appellant, learned AAG and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

Shri Charan, learned counsel representing the appellant urges that there is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the crime of murdering the deceased Kintu. He submits that the prosecution has set up a case that Kintu was working as a Khalasi on the trailer No.HR61.A.5244 owned by Praveen (P.W.1) and that the appellant had been engaged as a driver thereupon by the deceased himself. The trailer was loaded with PUC plastic powder from Panipat and delivered the some at Mumbai. On return, Soda ash was loaded in the trailer which reached near Dabok where, it was found abandoned and the dead body of Kintu was lying in it. Shri Charan submits that none of the witnesses examined during trial, personally identified the appellant as being the driver of the vehicle in question. He further submits that the recoveries which were shown to have been effected from the appellant are totally fabricated because all the articles viz. that of the tie liver, the key of the trailer and the Toll slips were recovered just near the place where, the trailer was lying abandoned after the incident. He thus urges that there is no plausible evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the crime. As per Shri Charan, the appellant is in custody since the year 2016 and there is no prospect of an early disposal of the appeal and hence, the sentences awarded to the appellant deserve to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urges that the name of the appellant is mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ex.P1) as being the driver of the offending vehicle and thus, dispute about the identity of the accused is totally futile. He submits that incriminating recoveries were effected at the instance of the appellant after he was arrested in this case and hence, there is no justification for suspending the sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial court.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

Three witnesses viz. Praveen (P.W.1), the first informant, Ramratan (P.W.6) and Mangal Singh (P.W.7) named the appellant as being the driver on the vehicle in which, the deceased Kintu was working as a Khalasi and was killed in the Udaipur District while the same was plying cargo from Panipat. However, none of these three witnesses identified the accused appellant in the court as being the offender when they were examined on oath. It may be stated that when the evidence of Praveen was recorded by the trial court on 5.6.2017, the accused appellant was not kept present from custody and thus, a question mark is cast on the legality of the procedure of recording evidence. The appellant was presented from the custody on 21.5.2018 on which date, statements of Ramratan and Mangal Singh were recorded but they did not identify the appellant Vijendra as being the offender. In addition to the statement of these three witnesses, the prosecution placed reliance on certain recoveries viz. that of an iron tie liver, key of the trailer and the Toll slips so as to connect the appellant with the crime. However, as per the FSL report (Ex.P49), none of the articles analysed at the FSL gave a conclusive result regarding the blood group. The recovery were shown to have been effected from just nearly the place where the trailer was found parked. The key and the toll slips are worthless articles and there is no reason as to why the offender would take the trouble to conceal them after the murder. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and valid grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. He is in custody from last more than four years. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

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, No.1, Udaipur vide judgment dated 16.7.2019 in Sessions Case No.19/2016 against the appellant-applicant Vijendra Singh S/o Hawa 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.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 17.4.2021 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.