Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Royal Singh vs The Ut Of J&K on 25 February, 2021
Supplementary-1 List
Sr. No. 201
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Pronounced On 25.02.2021
CrlM No. 844/2020 in
Crl A(D) No. 15/2020
in
Crl Ref(L) No. 6/2020
Royal Singh ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. R. K. Kotwal, Advocate
Ms. Monika Kohli, Advocate
Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate
Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate
Mr. Fahim Ahmed Mir, Advocate
V/s
The UT of J&K ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Special PP with
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
CrlM No. 844/2020 in Crl A (D) No. 15/2020 :
1. The appellant-convict Royal Singh, one of the accused in case No. 25-
A/Sessions, vide Judgment dated 10.08.2020 stands convicted by the court of
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for offence under Section
302/34 RPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act and vide order of the same date
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.
3000/- and in case of default of payment of fine came is to undergo further
simple imprisonment of 12 months. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section
3/25 Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine the convict is undergo
for simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are to run
concurrently.
2. The alleged occurrence of 29.8.2009 resulted into the death of Amandeep
Singh who was stated to be shot by the accused Jatinder Singh with desi-katta
outside his house. The appellant was also stated to accompanying the said
Jatinder Singh and holding pistol at the time of occurrence. FIR 247 of 2009
was registered with police station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in connection with the
occurrence. Later on SIT also came to be constituted and more persons were
made accused in the case for their alleged post occurrence role. It may be
mentioned herein that nine accused were charge sheeted in the challan and six
accused stand acquitted by the trial court whereas two of the accused died
during the trial.
3. The appellant has filed application for suspension of order of execution
of sentence and releasing him on bail on the ground that there is no legal
evidence upon which the conviction and sentence has been based. Further as
the convict is in custody for the last more than ten years and there may not be
possibility of the appeal being heard therefore the sentence of the appellant be
suspended and admitted to bail.
4. The objections to the application have been filed wherein the contentions
raised for the grant of bail have been rebutted and prayer is for dismissal of the
application.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that
the judgment passed by the trial court is flawed one as the evidence brought on
record does not connect the accused with the commission of offence for which
he has been convicted and sentenced. Except for the appellant rest of the
accused stand acquitted by the trial court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the court through the
judgment passed by the trial court in order to impress upon this court that the
trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right prospective. The very
weapon of offence alleged to be used in the commission of offence was not
proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the very basis of the conviction of the
appellant is not justified as his conviction also depended mainly on the case set
up against the accused Jatinder Singh who died during the pendency of the
challan.
7. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned special public prosecution in the case, has
argued that the judgment is well reasoned and the respondent has earned
conviction against the appellant as the case of the prosecution was proved
beyond shadow of doubt and held so by the trial court. The eye witnesses in the
case stood their ground during the examination in the court. The trial court has
taken every factual matter into consideration while recording the conviction
against the appellant.
8. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with
regard to the alleged involvement of four other persons in the case and their
letting off by the investigating agency and not arraying them as accused in the
challan makes the prosecution case murky is again the aspect which cannot be
finally commented upon in the present application and cannot be a ground to
allow the present application.
9. The court while deciding the application in hand is not required to
appreciate the evidence in detail as the same is required to be fathomed when
the main appeal is heard on merits. The perusal of the judgment passed by the
trial court reveals that the prosecution case hinged upon eye witnesses to the
occurrence as well as other evidence. The discrepancies in the prosecution
evidence tried to be highlighted, as per the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, do not by itself make out a case for the appellant for
the reliefs sought in the application under consideration. The perusal of the
impugned judgment does not make out it to be case of no evidence against the
appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pleaded that the accused is
entitled to bail on the ground that he has been in incarceration for the last more
than eleven years and further that there is no possibility of the main appeal
being heard in near future. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Takht Singh and
others Vs. State of M.P. 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 800, order dated
31.12.2015 passed by this Court in case titled Joginder Pal Vs. Union of India
and others( LPAOW No. 18/2015, MP No. 24/2015) and order dated
18.05.2018 passed by this Court in case titled Rajesh Dogra Vs. State of J&K
CRA No. 35/2017 and connected applications.
11. Learned Special PP appearing for the respondent has referred AIR 2009
Supreme Court 1564 and AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1465 in order to impress
upon the court that the suspension of sentence and bail can be granted in
exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine in heinous offences. The
present case does not call for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the
ground pleaded by the appellant is what is contended on behalf of the
respondent.
12. In criminal appeal titled Hari Ram and others Vs. State of J&K (CRA
No. 89/2012 decided on 24.08.2020) this court suspended the sentence and
granted the bail to the appellant convicted under Section 302 RPC after taking
into consideration the pendency of appeal for the last more than five years and
on account of parity with another appellant who was enlarged on bail.
13. Merely for the reason that the appellant is in jail for the last more than
eleven years is no ground to grant bail to the appellant. No doubt each case has
its own peculiarities and has to be decided on its own merits.
14. The court, on consideration of the nature of the offence, sentence
awarded and the fact that the appeal is pending disposal for less than a year,
finds no reason to allow the prayer made in the application in hand. The
application is dismissed. Taking cognizance of the concern of the appellant
that appeal may not be taken up for final consideration in near future the court
grants liberty to the appellant to move application for listing of the case for
final disposal in case the appeal is not taken up for consideration within
reasonable period.
(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
25.02.2021
Shammi
SHAMMI KUMAR
2021.02.25 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
