ATUL THAKRE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that the prosecution has set up omnibus allegations against all the convict persons i.e. Khema @ Khem Singh, Gaurav, Nitesh Singh @ Monu and the present applicant. He further submits that the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of accused Khema @ Khem Singh and Gaurav has been allowed by this Court while making the following observations: "Shri Charan and Shri Jain, learned Counsel representing the appellants urged that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. They drew the Court's attention to the statement of injured eye-witness PW-3 Madan Lal and his cross examination wherein he was confronted with his investigational statement (Ex.D/3) in which there is a categoric mention that the deceased Jogendra had gone to the house of the accused Gaurav where the incident took place. They urged that while deposing in the Court, the prosecution witness conveniently diverted from this fact and altered the genesis of the occurrence. They also referred to the statement of PW-7 Dr. Anil Jatav who carried out postmortem upon the body of the deceased Jogendra and also conducted medical examination of the injuries of PS-3 Madan Lal and urged that as per statement of the doctor, cause of death of deceased Jogendra was rupture of liver and spleen without there being any corresponding blunt weapon injuries on the external parts of the body. They further urged that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted to be true at the highest, the offence, if any, would not travel beyond Sec. 325 IPC. As per them, the accused have remained in custody for the last near four and half years and hearing of the appeals is likely to consume time. They thus, crave acceptance of the instant applications for suspension of sentences. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused appellants. He too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the incident took place infront of the house of the accused Gaurav. Furthermore, he also admits that the medical officer PW-7 Dr. Anil Jatav has given a specific opinion that the injuries to the internal organs i.e., liver and spleen of the deceased were not having any corresponding marks of external injuries. In this background and considering the long period of incarceration suffered by the accused petitioners but without commenting on the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept these applications for suspension of sentences."

(3.) The sentence awarded to the co-accused Nitesh Singh @ Monu has also been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 18/2/2019.