RAIMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences. He proposes to argue the matter orally.

(2.) Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Deora has contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been attributed a stone in his hand, whereas no injury by a stone was noticed on the body of the deceased Parbat Singh when the same was subjected to postmortem. He further urged that as per the evidence of PW-21 Devi Singh, the role of the applicant appellant is identical to that of the co-accused persons namely Jaisung Ram S/o Jagsi and Galba Ram S/o Bhaga Ram whose sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dtd. 19/12/2017 passed in D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No. 1295/2017. He also referred to the statement of PW-24 Gulab Singh S/o Shakti Singh and urged that his testimony is hearsay in nature and thus is not admissible in evidence. He submits that even though the witness Gulab Singh (PW.24) has given hearsay evidence but still as per his testimony, the appellant was not present in the Jeep from which the principal accused got down. He further submits that no specific injury suffered either by the deceased Parbat Snigh or the injured Govind Singh is attributed to the applicant. There is no evidence of criminal conspiracy and the case at hand was of a free fight. The appellant had no motive to inflict any injury or to kill the deceased Parbat Singh or to cause grievous hurt the injured Govind Singh. The incident happened at the spur of moment and rather, the deceased received injuries in an accident. He further urged that on some aspects, the case of the present applicant appellant is on better footing then that of co-accused persons Jaisung Ram and Galba Ram whose sentences have been suspended by this Court because the deadly blunt weapon which were recovered from them were having the same blood group as that of the deceased Parbat Singh. The applicant was previously released on parole on two occasions and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He submits that the only distinction in the case of the present applicant-appellant and of those co-accused Jaisung Ram and Galba Ram, who have been enlarged on bail is that the applicant-appellant is named in the FIR. As per him, the case of the applicant-appellant is on significantly better footing then that of co-accused Arjun Ram whose application for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court. He further urges that the appellant is in custody for a period nearly seven years and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and hence, the applicant deserves indulgence of bail on parity with those accused whose sentences have been suspended by this Court.