Sunil son of Mangi Lal vs State of Rajasthan

The learned counsel for the accused applicants submits that finding of the learned trial court is erroneous because in the first statement (Ex.D/8) of deceased Smt. Patasi Devi recorded by Shyam Singh, SI of Police Station, Dangiyawas no allegations were levelled by deceased against any accused applicants, who were charge-sheeted. Thereafter, another statement (Ex.P/1) was recorded on 19.8.2009 in which a specific allegation was levelled against accused applicants that they poured kerosene upon her and lit fire and subsequently, in the statement to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur (Ex.P/7) the allegations were levelled by the deceased for commission of offence, but both the subsequent statements (Ex.P/1) recorded on 19.8.2009 by the SHO Police Station, Dangiyawas and dying declaration (Ex.P/7), different story was narrated by the deceased after meeting her parents. Therefore, the subsequent statements were required to be ignored by the learned trial court because in first statement recorded by DW-4 Shyam Singh no allegations were levelled by the deceased Patasi Devi against accused applicants, therefore, the finding of the learned trial court relying upon subsequent statement of the deceased deserves to be rejected. It is also argued that in the statement of deceased (Ex.P/7) recorded by the Magistrate, the day on which occurrence took place, his presence is not disclosed. The only assertion is made that in another incident took place before 11 days, he came with her husband, therefore, it is obvious that no specific allegation is made against applicant Rameshwar by the deceased in her statement recorded by the Magistrate. Further, it is submitted that during trial, applicants were on bail, therefore the sentence awarded to them

may kindly be suspended. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the statement (Ex.D/8) recorded by DW-4 have been rightly ignored by the learned trial court because as per statement of DW-4 Shyam Singh he was not even authorized to record the statement, so also, in the statement recorded by the Magistrate (Ex.P/7) it is specifically stated by the deceased that at the time of admitting her in the hospital, the husband gave threat to her that whatever I will say, you should inform the police, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the dying declaration and statement recorded by the SHO Police Station, Dangiyawas upon which FIR was registered. Therefore, this application for suspension of

sentence may kindly be rejected.

After considering the prayer and finding of the learned trial court, without expressing any opinion, the application for suspension of sentence of the accused applicant (i) Sunil son of

Mangi Lal and (ii) Mangi Lal son of Kesha Ram is hereby rejected.

However, the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant Rameshwar S/o Mangi Lal deserves to be

accepted.

Consequently, application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of Rameshwar son of Mangi Lal is hereby allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 21.11.2016 in Sessions Case No.107/2013 (NCV No.797/2014) against the accused-appellant-applicant Rameshwar Son of Mangi Lal shall remain suspended till the final disposal of appeal preferred by him and he may be

released on bail provided he executes a personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty Five thousand

only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance in this Court on 6.2.2017 and whenever called upon to do so. A copy of this order may be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.