State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

: Mr. Amir Aziz For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 23/05/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 08.05.2025 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated

25.04.2025 in Sessions Case No. 108/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.2, Hindaun City, Karauli whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 304 Part-II and 308 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by police. He further submitted that for an unintentional accident from a truck resulting in death of one home guard and injures [2025:RJ-JP:21906] (2 of 5) [SOSA-913/2025] upon two other persons the appellant accused was tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He further referred the evidence on record and submitted that there are two set of evidence one for rash and negligent driving by truck driver and other for intentionally committing the act of assault resulting in death of one home guard sitting in truck at the time of incident. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that the mining officers have conducted illegal raid and a truck carrying masonry stone was intercepted but no search and seizure memo was prepared. He further submitted that the driver was following the vehicle moving infront of truck and suddenly due to speed breaker the truck has turtled resulting in unintentional accident. He further referred Section 81 of IPC and submitted that the act is committed without any criminal intention then and act of accused is covered under the exception and the trial court has not considered the grounds as raised by appellant accused. He also referred evidence on record particularly of PW-11 Sunil, independent person and submitted that he has not supported the case of prosecution. He also referred site plan Ex. P/4 and also evidence of both eye-witness injured and submitted that the intentional act of appellant accused was not proved, therefore, for the act of rash and negligent driving a person was convicted under Section 304 Part-II and 308 IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that this appellant accused is in custody since

24.06.2022 and period of custody is more than 2 years and 10 months whereas the awarded sentence is 7 years. He further submitted that the disposal of appeal will take its own time and there is no criminal antecedents against the appellant. He also [2025:RJ-JP:21906] (3 of 5) [SOSA-913/2025] referred issue of identification and non-consideration of evidence and submitted that the appellant has a strong case to succeed.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted report received from P.S. Suroth, District Karauli along with custody certificate and same are taken on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On the basis of report Ex. P/1 Submitted by mining surveyor Jitendra Singh PW-1 FIR no. 329/2022 under Sections 332, 353, 304 IPC and Section 4/21 of MMDR Act was registered at P.S. Nai Mandi, Hindaun City, District Karauli. After investigation the police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited four documents. The trial court has convicted the appellant accused under Section 308 and 304 Part-II of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded is 7 years.

6. The appellant accused was acquitted from charge under Sections 323, 333, 353, 336, 302, 307, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 4/21 of MMDR Act.

7. We have considered the statement of both injured PW-9 Hinglaj Ram and PW-10 Khetaram. Though, the appellant accused has pleaded that Khetaram was driving truck at the time of incident. We have considered the statement of PW-11 Sunil Kumar (independent witness as per learned appellant accused). Admittedly, the incident is caused by use of truck allegedly driven [2025:RJ-JP:21906] (4 of 5) [SOSA-913/2025] by appellant. As a result one Nemaram succumbed to injuries whereas two persons PW-9 and PW-10 have sustained injuries. A serious doubt is raised about applicability of Section 304 Part-II or 304-A IPC. The matter can be considered at the time of final adjudication but not now. The appellant accused has served around two years and eleven months against the awarded sentence.

8. Very recently Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.05.2025 while considering Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2021 in Re-policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, SMWP (Criminal) 4/2021, order Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering judgments in case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of U.P. 2024 (3) SCC 663 has observed release of persons awarded fixed term sentence. Herein, this case the appellant has served substantial part of sentence and the matter requires consideration on merits.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Kallu @ Pradhan Son Of Hargyan Singh, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:21906] (5 of 5) [SOSA-913/2025]

1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

2. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. CHETNA BEHRANI /16 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J