Sanjay Pandey vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 851 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 27/2020

Sanjay Pandey S/o Malchand, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Pahali Path, Ladnu, District Nagaur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :        Mr Dhirendra Singh
For Respondent(s)        :        Mr Mahipal Bishnoi - PP
For complainant                   Mr Pradeep Choudhary




           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment / Order

13/01/2021

By this application, under Section 389 CrPC, the

applicant-appellant seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him

by learned Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur (for short

'the trial court' hereinafter) vide judgment dated 28.02.2018 for

the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternate 302/149,

307 in alternate 307/149, 450 and Section 148 IPC.

In support of the application for suspension of

sentence, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that

initially in Parcha Bayan/ FIR, two co-accused viz. Anand Pal Singh

and Manjeet Singh were named, however, the applicant was not

named. It is submitted that the trial court, after considering the

evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused Manjeet

(2 of 3) [SOSA-27/2020]

Singh. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant

that first informant PW.1-Gopal - the injured, in his police

statements and other eye-witnesses did not name the applicant

during police investigation. It is further argued that even at the

time of filing of charge-sheet, the police failed to collect any

material against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant

has also submitted that the testimony of other eye-witnesses viz.

Pramod-PW.2, Ramchandra-PW.4, Inderchand-PW8, Raghunath-

PW.10 and Pappu alias Ramprakash-PW.11 are not reliable as they

have improved a lot in their court statements, which resulted into

serious contradictions in their statements recorded during police

investigation and court statements.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted

that the applicant is behind the bars from around 14 years and the

appeal preferred by him will take time in hearing and, therefore,

on this ground also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the

learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the

bail application and submitted that the applicant is guilty of

brutally killing two persons along with other co-accused persons.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

the complainant have invited our attention towards the statements

of PW.1-Gopal, who himself was injured in the incident. They

have submitted that the said witness had identified the applicant

during the identification parade and also identified the applicant

during court statements while specifically stating that the

applicant was one of the persons, who fired gunshots, resulted in

murdering of two persons. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as

the learned counsel for the complainant have also invited our

(3 of 3) [SOSA-27/2020]

attention towards the statements of PW.2-Pramod, PW.4-

Ramchandra, PW.8-Indrachand, PW.10-Raghunathram and PW.11-

Pappu alias Ramprakash and submitted that all these witnesses,

during their police statements as well as the court statements,

specifically identified the applicant and also levelled allegations

that he fired the gunshots, resulted in murder of two persons.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial court is not liable to

be suspended.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and

having gone through the evidence pointed out by the learned

counsel for the parties, we find that the injured as well as the eye-

witnesses have specifically named the applicant since beginning,

therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to hold that the applicant is

convicted and sentenced by the trial court without there being any

evidence.

Hence, no case for suspending the sentence of the

applicant awarded by the trial court is made out. The application

for suspension of sentence is, therefore, rejected.

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),JJ

masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)