1. (1) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. II BAIL APPLICATION (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.949/2009 IN D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.525/2007 (2) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.1121/2008 IN D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.525/2007 (3) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.417/2009 IN D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.601/2007 DATE OF ORDER : 05.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Mahesh Bora, Mr. J.R. Beniwal, Mr. J.S. Choudhary, for the respective accused applicants. Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor. These are the three separate applications for suspension of sentence filed by different counsel on behalf of accused applicants namely Dhanna Ram, Hanuman, Ramu Ram, Budha Ram son of Heera Ram, Arjun Ram and Sukha Ram son of Jeta Ram. Since, the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of accused applicants namely Dhanna Ram and Hanuman has been filed second time being D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.949/2009, whereas, their application for suspension of sentence along with other three accused applicants namely Ramu Ram, Budha Ram son of Heera Ram and Arjun Ram was already pending being D.B. 2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.1121/2008, there is no need to pass any other separate order on application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of accused applicants namely Dhanna Ram and Hanuman on second application for suspension of sentence being D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.949/2009. Accordingly, the D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.949/2009 filed on behalf of accused applicants namely Dhanna Ram and Hanuman is disposed of because of the pendency of D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of Sentence) No.1121/2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The present case is the outcome of FIR Ex.P-27 lodged on the statement of Kesa Ram on 12.09.1999. It is alleged that on that day, accused who originally kidnapped Bimli, daughter of Heera Ram took her back and, thereupon, the complainant party asked them to take her to the Police Station, but instead of it, 21 accused alleged to have attacked on the complainant party with deadly weapons and committed murder of Kana Ram and Hanuman. The challan was filed against 21 accused, out of which, accused Sagarmal and Bajrang Singh have been acquitted by the learned trial court and rest 19 accused have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 324, 326 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused applicants that all the eye witnesses have given omnibus statements with regard to 3. the use of deadly weapons by the accused applicants and there was no intention or motive on the part of the accused applicants to commit murder of Kana Ram and Hanuman. The incident has taken place on account of kidnapping of a girl, who was brought up again by the accused party. Whatever may be the reasons, it is argued by learned counsel for the accused applicants that it is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for suspension of sentence. According to him, all the accused applicants are liable under Section 149 IPC. We have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the record of the case. At the stage of bail, we are not looking to the evidentiary value of the recovery vis a vis the role of the present accused applicants. We have seen the Post Mortem Reports of deceased Kana Ram and Hanuman. The cause of death is the punctured wounds inflicted by sharp edged weapons. As argued by learned counsel for the accused applicants, the sharp edged weapons namely axes (kulhari) were recovered from accused Budha Ram son of Kana Ram vide Ex.P.11, Sagarmal vide Ex.P.9, Bajrang Singh vide Ex.P.13, saria vide Ex.P.56 from Goga Ram, another saria vide Ex.P.62 from Bhanwara Ram and jelly vide Ex.P.7 from Prabhu Ram and out of these six persons, who were having deadly weapons, two have been acquitted by the learned trial court namely Sagarmal and Bajrang Singh as their names were not figured in the FIR. Rest of the accused including those who were named by the eye witnesses were not having sharp edged weapons. As regards present accused applicants, on whose behalf, the applications for suspension of sentence have been 4. moved, there is a simple recovery of lathi from them and so far as accused applicant Sukha Ram son of Jeta Ram is concerned, there is no recovery from him and there is a recovery of lathi from accused Sukha Ram son of Kalu Ram vide Ex.P-45. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the accused applicants and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the present accused applicants. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar vide his judgment dated 28.06.2007 against accused applicants namely Dhanna Ram S/o Heera Ram, Hanuman S/o Jeta Ram, Ramu Ram S/o Jeta Ram, Budha Ram S/o Heera Ram, Arjun Ram S/o Jeta Ram and Sukha Ram S/o Jeta Ram shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar for their appearance in this Court on 18.01.2010 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellant(s) change the place of residence, he/she/they will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his/her/their counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly if sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court. 5. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused appellant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused appellant(s) do/does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M. KAPADIA), J. ms rathore