ATMARAM versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

ATMARAM v STATE - CRLAB Case No. 56 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 1044 (23 February 2007)

D. B. Cr. Misc.II Appl. for Suspension of Sentence No.56/2007

In

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.439/2002

Date : 23.02.2007

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satya Prakash Pathak

Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sarraf

Mr. D.S. Dev for applicant.

Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor.

The present matter has come up on an application for suspension of sentence of the accused applicant Atma Ram who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in this case two important aspects of the matter are required to be considered; firstly that the co-accused who was having

Knife, has been granted bail and since the case of the present accused applicant is similar to the co-accused, therefore, he should also be granted bail, and secondly one of the persons who was present at the time of the incident has been left by the police, therefore, the matter of the applicant may also be considered for bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the findings of guilt recorded whereby the accused applicant was convicted and sentenced for life under Section 302 IPC.

The allegation against the accused applicant is to the effect that he was having Knife and in that connection PW2 mother of the deceased lodged the report clearly stating the manner in which the incident took place and also specifically stated that the accused applicant was responsible for inflicting Knife blow. As per the medical report and the statement of Doctor Mr. Indrapal Singh

(PW3) the injury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, it is not desirable for us to discuss other evidence available on record but at the same time, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case where the sentence of the accused applicant is suspended.

The application for suspension of sentence stands rejected.

(G.S. SARRAF), J. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.