SOSA 1014/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.1014/2009 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 900/2009 Gopi Ram Versus State Date of Order ::: 30/09/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guman Singh. Mr. KC Sharma, for accused-applicant. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mehla, PP Heard counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material made available. This application has been filed by the accused-applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant Gopi Ram was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and was sentenced to undergo 6 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide judgment dated 12/08/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 54/2008 Learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant faced trial along with 10 other accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 302 IPC. However, after trial the accused-applicant was convicted only for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and was sentenced as mentioned herein above. Learned counsel further submits that the other co-accused Dinesh was also convicted for the offence under Section 323, 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous SOSA 1014/09 //2// imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 325 IPC. However, the co-accused Dinesh has been granted indulgence of suspension of sentence by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, all the 11 accused persons came to the house of the complainant party and assaulted the complainant party at 7.30 am in the morning while the complainant party was taking tea at their house. The deceased Uganti, a sixteen years old girl, was also there and she was also assaulted by the accused-applicant Gopl Ram and others who succumbed to the injury later on. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased Uganti sustained only one injury and the prosecution could not establish that the said injury could be exclusively attributed to accused-applicant Gopi Ram alone. It has been further argued that in view of the facts and circumstances, there was no intention to cause death of Uganti on the part of the accused- applicant or the other co-accused. Therefore, the trial court has acquitted the accused- applicant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has convicted only for the offence under Section 304 Part I. Learned counsel further submits that the act is not covered by Section 304 Part I and at the most, it may be a case under Section 325 or 326 IPC or at the most under Section 304 Part II IPC as the accused-applicant has already undergone about four years imprisonment, he deserves to be granted indulgence of suspension SOSA 1014/09 //3// of sentence as he is in custody since 07/11/2005. While the Sessions Case has been decided only in the month of August, 2009 and the accused-applicant has already undergone a sentence of almost four years, he deserves to be granted the benefit of suspension of sentence. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but did not controvert the factual situation stated by learned counsel for the accused-applicant. In view of the rival submissions advanced by counsel for the accused-applicants, without commenting on the merits of the case, looking to the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the accused-applicant is in custody for almost four years, I deem it proper to grant indulgence of suspension of sentence to the accused-applicant. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused-applicant Gopi Ram son of Shri Lakh Ram by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 54/2008 vide judgment dated 12/08/2009, titled as Gopi Ram and others Vs. State, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned lower court with the stipulation to appear before this Court on 30/10/2009 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so. (Guman Singh), J. Raghu-1014sosa2009-final.doc