Bombay High Court
Charansingh Sohansingh Sandhu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 August, 2024
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:19432-DB
2-Criappl-721-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2019
Grmitsingh Rajasingh Sevadar ....Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.......
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2021
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2019
.......
Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for the Applicant / Appellant in Application
No.721/2024
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl. PP for Respondent - State in Application No.721/2024,
Appeal Nos.1240/2019 and 52/2021 and for Applicant - State in Application
for Leave to Appeal by State No.6/2020
Mr. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Informant / Appellant in Appeal No.52/2021
.........
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 26.08.2024
PER COURT :
1. This is an Application for suspension of substantive sentence
imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded, vide
Judgment and Order dated 07/11/2019, in Sessions Case
No.55/2016, convicting the Applicant/Appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant / Appellant. He
fairly submits that the frst Application of the Applicant for
suspension of sentence was withdrawn by the order dated
28/02/2020. He submits that the co-accused, to whom similar role
has been attributed, has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
He submits that the Application be allowed.
1
2-Criappl-721-2024.odt
3. This Application is opposed by the learned Addl. PP. He
submits that the case is based on testimony of the eye witnesses.
He submits that against the acquittal of co-accused, the State has
preferred the Appeal against acquittal and the same is pending for
consideration of this Court. He submits that this Court has granted
leave to Appeal by the State. He submits that the Application be
rejected.
4. The learned Advocate for the informant submits that the
victim - informant has also preferred the Appeal against acquittal
and the same is pending for consideration. He submits that the
Application be rejected.
5. We have perused the relevant evidence on record. It is the
case of Prosecution that on 21/02/2016, the Applicant / Appellant
and co-accused had come to the house of victim and called him out
of the house. Deceased came out and accompanied the Applicant
and co-accused. After going for some distance, deceased was killed
by use of frearm by the Applicant / Appellant. Admittedly, the
case is based on testimony of two [2] eye witnesses i.e. PW - 7
[Charansingh Sohansingh Sandhu] and PW - 8 [Sarabjotsingh @
Pitta s/o Charansingh Sandhu]. Their testimony show that they
had seen the actual incident. They named the Applicant /
Appellant as the person who fred the pistol and caused the death
of deceased - Surendersingh. The medical evidence show the cause
of death as 'frearm injuries'. Admittedly, the report of ballistic
expert supports the case of Prosecution. The re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record would be undertaken after the parties
are fnally heard in this Appeal and the Appeal against acquittal.
Under such circumstances, the submission of prolong incarceration
of the Applicant / Appellant for eight [8] years cannot be the
2
2-Criappl-721-2024.odt
ground to Suspend his sentence. However, we are fxing the Appeal
for fnal hearing. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
[a] Application is rejected.
[b] The Appeal i.e. Appeal No.1240/2019 is separated from the
Application for leave to appeal by State and the Appeal
preferred by the victim with the consent of all the sides.
[c] The Criminal Appeal against conviction be fxed for fnal
hearing on 20/09/2024.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
Sameer
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
