Ajit Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2005 Latest Caselaw 901 Del

JUDGMENT

R. C. Jain, J.

1. Through this application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant-Ajit Singh has prayed for suspension of his sentence and his release on bail till the disposal of the appeal.

2. The appellant/applicant herein has been convicted of the charges under Sections 395/398 read with Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the allegations that he along with five more persons, namely-Ravinder Kumar @Ravi, Ashvir, Jagbir, Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar, committed dacoity on Raghunath Sharma on the night intervening 17th/18th June, 1999 near Jaunpur Village on main Gurgaon Road and looted him of his car, gold chain, wrist watch, gold ring and a purse containing Rs. 15,000/- at the point of knives and pistol. The conviction is largely based on recovery of the looted mobile phone from the possession of the appellant/applicant pursuant to disclosure statement made by him before the police. Based on the said recovery, the learned trial court has raised presumptions under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and convicted the appellant/applicant herein.

3. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has made a vehement plea for release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal primarily on the ground that the recovery of article from the appellant was not established by means of cogent and reliable evidence and in any case cannot be accepted beyond reasonable doubt and there are several infirmities in the prosecution case, which would show that the prosecution case in regard to the recovery of the alleged article is highly improbable. It is also pointed out that the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime has not been established at the trial. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of suspension of sentence.

4. This Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, seriousness of the allegations, gravity of the charge for which the appellant has been found guilty and taking a prima facie view of the evidence and material obtaining on record, is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretion for suspending the sentence of the appellant/applicant. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to say that observations made herein will not tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal.

5. Appeal shall be listed for hearing in due course.