Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALLU versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KALLU v STATE - CRLAB Case No. 1033 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2364 (1 May 2007)

S.B.Cr.Misc.II Application for suspension of Sentence No. 1033/06

IN

S.B.CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO.781/2005

(Kallu Vs. State of Rajasthan)

Date of order : 01/05/2007

HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR, J.

Mr. K.R.Bhati, Amicus Curiae for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Public Prosecutor.

By the instant second application under Section 389

Cr.P.C., the appellant-applicant seeks suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second application for suspension of sentence. Perused the judgment and order impugned as also the record of the trial court.

It is contended by learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant-appellant that as per the statement of doctor PW-6 Dr.

Ravi Upadhayay, who examined the prosecutrix, there is nothing to indicate that an attempt to commit rape was made. At best, if any case is made out against the applicant-appellant, that would not traverse beyond Section 354 IPC. He further submits that the swab taken by the medical authorities was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-12 but no such report has been received from the Forensic Science

Laboratory. On perusal of the record, no such report is on record corroborating the case of the prosecution. Lastly, it was contended that the appellant-applicant is in custody for about two years and the appeal is not likely to come up for hearing in near future.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that the FSL report has not been placed on record, the appeal is not likely to come up for hearing in near future and the applicant has already suffered the imprisonment of about two years, I think it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant-applicant.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under

Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara vide judgment dt. 14.9.2005 in sessions case No. 52/05 against applicant- appellant Kallu S/o Heera shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before this court on 07.6.2007 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, he will intimate to this

Court and his lawyer about his new place of residence.

(H.R.PANWAR),J.

RP


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.