Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharwan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 449/2021
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 269/2019
Sharwan Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, aged about 62 years, R/o
Village Bhandu Kalla, Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur.
(Presently lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia & Dr. Vikas Balia
Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Jaideep
Singh Saluja
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG - I
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
Per Hon'ble Mr. Rameshwar Vyas, J.
25/04/2022
The appellant-applicant has been convicted and sentenced as
below vide Judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case
No.222/2012 (75/2005) :-
Offence Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
U/s 307/149 IPC Imprisonment for Rs. 50,000/- 1 year
(2 of 4) [SOSA-449/2021]
life imprisonment
U/s 326/149 IPC 7 years' RI Rs. 30,000/- 3 months' RI
U/s 148 IPC 1 year's RI Rs. 2,000/- 2 months' RI
U/s 323/149 IPC 6 months' RI Rs. 500/- 1 month's RI
U/s 353/149 IPC 1 years' RI Rs. 2,000/- 2 months' RI
U/s 333/149 IPC 7 years' RI Rs. 30,000/- 3 months' RI
U/s 3 PDPP Act 3 years' RI Rs. 5,000/- 2 months' RI
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The appellant has preferred this second application under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentences awarded to
him by the trial court. The first application for suspension of
sentences filed by the appellant was rejected by this Court by a
detailed Order dated 02.07.2021.
Learned Government Advocate - cum - AAG - I has not
chosen to file reply to the application for suspension of sentences
and proposes to argue the matter without reply.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record as also
record of the trial court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
firearm alleged to be used by the appellant has been recovered at
the instance of Raju Singh. As per prosecution case, Shrawan
Singh and Bhawani Singh both were carrying gun but only one
gun has been recovered, which too was not found in the
possession of the present appellant. Drawing attention of this
Court to the statements of P.W. 6 - Gyanpal, Police Constable and
P.W. 22 - Devendra Singh, the then Incharge of Police Station,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that Raju Singh in his
information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, did
not say that gun was in the possession of the present appellant
and based on his information, the gun being concealed in the
(3 of 4) [SOSA-449/2021]
'Oran' land was recovered. The present appellant has also not
been convicted under the Arms Act. He has further submitted that
in the present case, all co-convicts have been granted bail. The
present appellant is behind the Bar for almost four years. The
hearing of the appeal is not likely to be completed in near future.
On the above grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has
prayed that the sentences awarded to the present appellant may
be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
On the other hand, learned GA - cum - AAG has submitted
that co-convict Bhawani Singh has been enlarged on bail by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on medical grounds. There are total 21 cases
registered against the present appellant, out of which he has been
convicted in 3 cases and 8 cases are still pending trial against him.
He has further submitted that first application seeking suspension
of sentences filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Court on
02.07.2021. There is no change in the circumstances, on the basis
of which, prayer of the appellant deserves to be accepted. The
appellant has been awarded life imprisonment, out of which he
has undergone four years sentences only. He has further
submitted that the present appellant cannot claim parity qua the
co-convict Raju Singh, who has not been attributed gunshot injury
by the eye-witnesses.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and material available on record as also looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to
grant second application seeking suspension of sentences
preferred by the appellant. After rejecting the first application,
there is no change in circumstances in favour of the appellant.
The specific allegation of causing gunshot injuries to the officials of
(4 of 4) [SOSA-449/2021]
Excise Department has been made by eye-witnesses against
present appellant and Bhawani Singh. The application of co-
convict Bhawani Singh seeking suspension of sentences has been
allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on medical grounds, which is
not the case of the present appellant. The alleged shortcomings in
the recovery of firearm and the fact that only one firearm was
recovered, cannot be made a basis to grant application discarding
the statements of eye-witnesses particularly when there is clear
evidence of gunfire shot by the present appellant.
In view of the above, we do not find any ground to suspend
the sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial court.
Accordingly, the second application for suspension of
sentences filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
3-Sahil/Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
