GYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred by the applicants-appellants under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. seeking release on bail during pendency of the appeal by suspending the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 35/2017 vide judgment dtd. 19/4/2021 whereby the applicants-appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_145_LAWS(RAJ)1_2022_1.html</FRM> Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Devendra Mehalana representing the appellants-applicants through Video Conferencing and Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, learned AGC and have gone through the impugned judgment and record.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Mehalana representing the appellants applicants vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution had filed a charge-sheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 304B IPC, in the alternative Sec. 306 IPC and in the alternative Sec. 302/34 IPC. The learned trial court acquitted the appellants from the offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 302 IPC and has convicted them as above. He urged that the appellant Sube Singh was admittedly lodged in custody on the date of the incident. The appellant Gyan Singh and Smt. Rinku were married on 2/3/2011. Smt. Rinku unfortunately got accidentally burnt on 13/4/2017. The appellant Gyan Singh tried to douse the fire and received extensive burns on his hands. Smt. Rinku was immediately rushed to the hospital where, her version was recorded in the bedhead ticket (Ex.D4) in which, the lady stated that she had received the burns accidentally while trying to boil water. He urges that even though Smt. Rinku was well oriented and fully conscious at the time of her admission in the Govt. Hospital Hanumangarh Town, no effort was made to get her statement recorded. He further contended that the prosecution tried to twist the case in the evidence of child witness P.W. 5 Sushri Soniya, daughter of the appellant Gyan Singh and the deceased Smt. Rinku. However, the trial court discarded her testimony. He submits that there is no substance in the allegations of the witnesses Nirmala P.W. 1 mother of the deceased and Ratan Singh P.W. 4 father of the deceased, that their daughter was maltreated on account of demand of dowry. He further contended that the appellants are in custody since April 2017. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future. On these grounds, Shri Mehalana implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and enlarge the appellants on bail.