Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 359/2023
Sanjay Singh S/o Sh. Maanpal Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
H.no. 132 (Actual 135), Labour Colony, Purani Abadi,
Sriganganagar, Dist. Sriganganagar, Raj. (Presently Lodged At
Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot assisted by
Ms. Vandana Prajapati &
Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
Mr. Vishan Das Vaishnav.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
Reserved on 09/09/2024
Pronounced on 17/09/2024
1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case
No.23/2021 (C.I.S. No.85/2016):
Conviction Sentence Fine
under Section
302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further 6
months' R.I.
3/25 Arms Act One Year's S.I. Rs.1000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further
One Month's S.I.
27 Arms Act Three Years' S.I. Rs.1000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further
One Month's S.I.
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-359/2023]
2. The applicant-appellant has preferred the instant application
under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence,
during pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that as
per the eyewitness PW.10- Veena Sharma, she dropped the
deceased at the place of incident, and left immediately; in the
given circumstances, the version to the effect of her returning
back to the place of incident suddenly at the relevant time,
renders her testimony as unreliable, thus, she could not have
been considered as an eyewitness to the incident in question.
Thus, as per learned counsel, there was no eyewitness in the
present case.
3.1. It was further submitted that the incident had happened in a
Gymnasium, but there is no recovery of CCTV footage regarding
the incident in question, nor any material has been produced by
the prosecution during the trial, which could show any motive on
the part of the applicant-appellant to cause murder of the
deceased.
3.2. It was also submitted that PW.1, PW.2, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6,
PW.7, PW.9, PW.12, PW.13 have turned hostile during the trial,
and hence, did not support the prosecution story. It was futher
submitted that the applicant-appellant is behind the bars, for last
about 7 years.
3.3. It was further submitted that the other similarly situated co-
accused i.e Karan Singh and Anil Kumar have already been
acquitted by the learned Trial Court, but on the similar set of facts,
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-359/2023]
circumstances and evidence, the conviction of the present
applicant-appellant was recorded by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment.
3.4. It was also submitted that the applicant-appellant, though is
having criminal antecedents of 12 cases, in total, but in 8 out of
them, the applicant-appellant has already been acquitted on
merit, while in remaining 4 cases, he has been acquitted on the
basis of compromise.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the instant
application for suspension of sentence.
4.1. It was submitted that the applicant-appellant hatched a
criminal conspiracy in collusion with the other co-accused to cause
murder of the deceased, and his involvement in the crime in
question was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubts, before the learned Trial Court.
4.2. It was further submitted that the applicant-appellant is a
habitual offender and remained involved continuously in criminal
activities from 1995 to 2014. It was also submitted that the
applicant-appellant is having criminal antecedents of total 12
criminal cases under the various provisions of IPC, Arms Act and
Excise Act.
4.3. It was further submitted that there was an eye witness
(PW.10) to the incident in question and she completely supported
the prosecution case. It was also submitted that if the applicant-
appellant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may
indulge himself again in the criminal activities, and therefore, the
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-359/2023]
present suspension of the sentence application deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence was passed by the learned Trial
Court, convicting and sentencing the present applicant-appellant,
as above.
7. This Court further observes that eyewitness PW.10-Veena
Sharma (mother of deceased) stated in her testimony, that she
saw that the applicant-appellant with other accused persons, who
at the relevant time, opened firing by pistol on the deceased and
caused murder of the deceased, and the said version was
consistent throughout i.e. in FIR (Ex.P/9), and in statements
under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., qua the involvement of the
applicant-appellant in the crime in question.
8. This Court also observes that the police authority recovered
a 12 Bore Desi Katta (country-made pistol) vide Ex.P/44 on the
basis of the information given by the applicant-appellant himself.
This Court further observes that in the body of the deceased, "lead
slug piece four wads D/1, D/2, D/3 and twenty two damaged lead
pellets from packet "A" were found, which normally, can be fired
from the aforesaid country-made pistol. This Court also observes
that the said pistol pallets (Chharre) were recovered from the
body of the deceased.
9. This Court further observes that the applicant-appellant has
been involved in criminal activities since 1995 and has criminal
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-359/2023]
antecedents of total 12 cases to his discredit; though in all those
cases, he was acquitted, but when seen in the present
perspective, it is clear that the murder in question was completely
pre-planned, and an instance of organized crime on part of the
applicant-appellant. This Court also observes that the applicant-
appellant was involved in committing a heinous offence i.e. brutal
murder of the deceased.
10. This Court further observes that apart from the above, the
custody period of the applicant-appellant is not sufficient so as to
entitle him for indulgence of suspension of sentence, at this stage.
11. This Court is conscious of the precedent law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi Vs. State of
U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024,
decided on 05.04.2024), wherein it has been held that for exercise
of the powers under Section 389 Cr.P.C., it would not be
appropriate to consider only the factum of sufferance of
incarceration for a particular period, rather the other relevant
factors, including the gravity of the offence, also have to be taken
into account.
12. Thus, in view of the above and taking into consideration the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant-
appellant in this case.
[2024:RJ-JD:37852-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-359/2023]
13. Consequently the present application for suspension of
sentence under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
