Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tahar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.2685/2020
(Tahar Singh & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Jabalpur, dated : 25.03.2022.
Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the appellant/applicant.
Shri Satyapal Chadhar, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.14069/2020 which is the first application under
Section 389 (1) CrPC for suspension of sentence of applicant-Tulsiram.
2. Applicant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosives
Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-;
in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 6 months.
3. The suspension is pleaded on the grounds that independent
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Except the
seizing officer two other police witnesses have admitted that they had
singed the documents in respect of seizure, arrest etc. under the
pressure of their officer whom they are subordinate to. Co-accused
Tahar Singh has been granted suspension and parity exists in favour of
the applicant. Learned counsel referred to paragraph-17 of the
impugned judgment and the statement dated 19.04.2018 recorded by
the police during the inquiry to press the ground of parity. It is
contended that the judgment of Karamjeet Singh vs. State (2003) 5 SCC
291 relied upon by the trial Court is not applicable in this case.
Statements of police witnesses are not reliable. In such circumstances,
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ran Singh vs. State of
Haryana reported in 1993 1 Crimes (HC) 1055 has set-aside the
conviction of the appellant therein. It is further submitted that out of 10
years, the applicant has completed more than 3 years of sentence and
there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal, therefore, the
sentence of the appellant be suspended.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and supported
the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard the counsels at length and perused the record.
6. In the statement dated 19.04.2018 referred to by the learned
counsel for the applicant as well as his statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC, the applicant has clearly admitted that he had
purchased gelatin rods recovered from his possession and was carrying
them with him. Besides, there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of
the seizing officer. The findings recorded by the trial Court with regard
to the independent witnesses and other witnesses also appear to be
lawful. Co-accused has been granted suspension considering that at the
time of incident he was the driver of the motorcycle and the applicant
who was carrying the bag full of gelatin rods had taken lift from him
and he (co-accused) was not aware about the content of bag being
carried by the applicant, therefore, parity does not exist in favour of the
applicant.
7. Further, bonafide or the intention of carrying gelatin rods has also
been pressed into service to show that the applicant is an agriculturist.
He intended to dig a well for irrigation of his land and in that process
only he was carrying the gelatin rods as the villagers commonly do. His
intention was not to cause any explosion or to harm anybody, therefore,
his sentence be suspended.
8. Learned counsel referred to the judgment in the case of Avdhesh
Kumar vs. State of Delhi reported in 1983 23 DLT 482 : 1983 0
Supreme (Del) 98 but this is distinguishable on facts and is not
applicable in the present case.
9. So far as delay in hearing of the appeal is concerned, learned
counsel for the applicant was offered to argue the appeal finally even
today, but he took his steps back stating that he has not been instructed
to do so.
10. In view of the aforesaid, particularly the admission of the
applicant made before the trial Court in his statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC and also considering the evidence available on
record, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground, including the
ground of parity, is made out to suspend the sentence of the appellant,
therefore, the application I.A.No.14069/2020 is dismissed.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE
anand
Digitally signed by
ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2022.03.26
15:21:32 +05'30'
