Thakor Ranchhodji Sedhaji. Vs. State of Gujarat. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav.1. rule. mr.h.l. jani, learned additional public prosecutor, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state.2. present application is filed by the applicant under section 389 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide order dated 18^th december 2010 passed by the learned sessions judge, patan in sessions case no.25 of 2009 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. the learned sessions judge, patan by his judgment and order dated 18^th december 2010 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under section 326 of the indian penal code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two-and-half-years and also impose fine of rs.05,000/-.4. heard mr.devang joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and mr.h.l. jani, learned additional public prosecutor for the respondent-state.5. mr.joshi has contended that the applicant is on bail today and fine amount has also been deposited by the applicant.6. i have gone through the papers produced before me as well as the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned sessions judge, patan.7. looking to the facts of the case, i am of the opinion that this is a fit case to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant. hence, the present application is hereby allowed. the substantive sentence is hereby placed under suspension pending hearing and disposal of the main appeal and the applicant-original accused is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing surety of rs.10,000/- and a personal bond of the like amount on usual terms and conditions. rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. direct service is permitted.

Judgment:
1. Rule. Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide order dated 18^th December 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No.25 of 2009 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Patan by his judgment and order dated 18^th December 2010 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two-and-half-years and also impose fine of Rs.05,000/-.

4. Heard Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Mr.Joshi has contended that the applicant is on bail today and fine amount has also been deposited by the applicant.

6. I have gone through the papers produced before me as well as the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan.

7. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant. Hence, the present application is hereby allowed. The substantive sentence is hereby placed under suspension pending hearing and disposal of the main appeal and the applicant-original accused is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing surety of Rs.10,000/- and a personal bond of the like amount on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.