URMILA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second application for suspension of sentence under Sec. 389 Cr.RC. has been filed on behalf of applicant - Appellant Smt. Urmila whose first similar application was rejected vide order dated 12.4.2004.

(2.) Her learned counsel has contended that she was perhaps declined suspension of sentence earlier keeping in view the circumstance mentioned in the judgment that she and co-accused Hanuman were found carrying illicit arms in their possession on the date of pronouncement of the judgment in this case but the FIR No. 313/03 RS. Kotwali Jhunjhunu reveals that it was only co-accused Hanuman who was found in possession of the country made pistol with three live cartridges without a valid license and not the present petitioner. He has also submitted that she is a woman who is in jail with an infant of less than 2 years of age in her lap since 12.12.2003 i.e. the date of judgment. She was on bail during trial and there is no allegation against her that she ever misused the liberty of bail. No specific injury to Nekiram has been attributed to her. She has been held guilty for the alleged offences with the application of Sec. 149 IPC. It is just possible that the court may after hearing the appeal come to the conclusion that lesser offence than the offence under Sec. 307 Penal Code is made out for which she may even be released on probation or may be released on the sentence of about 8 months already undergone by her. Unlike co-accused Hanuman and others, she was not an accused in the case pertaining to murder of Karan Singh.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have both vehemently opposed the application. They have submitted that the petitioner actively participated in inflicting injuries to Nekiram who brought and handed over the iron rod to co-accused. But, they could not controvert the ' contention of the learned counsel that unlike co-accused Hanuman, she was not found in possession of any illicit arm.