- (1.) THOUGH the matter has been called out twice over, nobody is present for the applicant. It is noticed that this 7th application seeking suspension of execution of sentence was filed on 08.10.2012. It came up on 15.01.2013 but on that date too, nobody was present before the Court to pursue the application though the matter was called out twice over. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. When nobody has chosen to appear for the applicant today either despite waiting for long and calling the matter twice over, we have considered it appropriate to examine the connected records, particularly when the present one is said to be the 7th application for suspension.
(2.) THE applicant has been convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and has been sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2004 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 5/2004. The incident in question took place in the month of August 2003. The charge- sheet was initially filed on 21.11.2003 but the present applicant Rewant Ram could not be apprehended and challan was filed in his relation under Section 299 Cr.P.C.. Ultimately, he was arrested and then, the supplementary charge-sheet in his relation was filed on 18.03.2004. The learned Trial Court, after examination of the record, proceeded to acquit one of the accused Hemaram but the others, including the present applicant Rewant Ram, were convicted for the offences aforesaid. The appeal, as filed by the present applicant with the other co-accused persons, being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 829/2004 remains pending consideration. The earlier applications for suspension as filed on behalf of the present applciant Rewant Ram were considered by this Court and were rejected on Lastly, the 6th application, bearing number different dates. 532/2011, was considered by a co-ordiante Bench of this Court on 30.05.2011. It is borne out from the order dated 30.05.2011 that after arguing the matter for long, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant sought permission to withdraw and the Court granted such indulgence. Hence, the application was dismissed as withdrawn. However, at the request, the Court also ordered listing of the appeal for final disposal, preferably in the month of September 2011. It is also borne out from the record of for early hearing was, in fact, allowed on 04.05.2009 and, therefore, the appeal had already been listed for hearing.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the appeal did come up for hearing on 06.12.2012 but for nobody having appeared for the appellants, the matter was adjourned. The sum and substance of what has been noticed hereinabove is that 6 applications moved on behalf of the applicant seeking suspension of execution of sentence have already been dismissed by this Court and then, the appeal filed by him alongwith other co-accused has already been posted for hearing. In the totality of the circumstances, we do not find any reason to consider granting indulgence in this 7th application seeking suspension of execution of sentence now at this stage. The appeal should, of course, be listed for hearing as already ordered and it would be expected of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to attend the matter for hearing when called out.;