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.