Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amandeep @ Golu @ Dholu vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39875-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 546/2024
Amandeep @ Golu @ Dholu S/o Rajendra @ Raju, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Near Sabji Mandi Chowki, Sainiyan Mohalla, P.S. Sadar
Hisar Dist. Hisar. (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reserved on 24/09/2024
Pronounced on 27/09/2024
1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in
Sessions Case No. 19/2019 (C.I.S. No.19/19):
Offence Sentence Fine
302/34 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5,000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further 2
years S.I.
454 IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further 3
months S.I.
380 IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further 3
months S.I.
[2024:RJ-JD:39875-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-546/2024]
2. The applicant-appellant has preferred the instant application
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and release
on bail, during pendency of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that as
per PW.4-Divya, at the time of incident in question, there were
two persons came namely Bajranglal Yadav and Santosh, out of
whom, Santosh was not produced as witness and Bajranglal
(PW.14) had turned hostile during the trial. It was further
submitted that PW.4 was not an eyewitness, as she was not
present at the place of incident at the relevant time.
3.1. It was also submitted that the applicant-appellant was under
Baprada and the concerned investigating officer has already
shown the photograph of the applicant-appellant before the
identification by PW.4 and PW.14 and the same was supported by
PW.1-Jeet Singh who conducted the Test Identification Parade.
3.2. It was further submitted that the deceased had a revolver
and when he fired from the said revolver, the bullet accidentally
hit himself, but the said revolver was recovered from the co-
accused, which shows that there has been an evidence planted by
the prosecution to falsely implicate the applicant-appellant.
3.3. It was also submitted that the applicant-appellant has been
behind the bars since 02.04.2019 i.e. undergone the custody
period of more than 5 years.
3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel referred at
the Bar, the following orders passed by this Hon'ble Court:-
[2024:RJ-JD:39875-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-546/2024]
(a) Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1210/2023,
decided on 04.07.2024);
(b) Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension of Sentence No. 281/2024, decided on 29.07.2024)
and
(c) Kamlesh Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension of Sentence No. 614/2023, decided on 15.07.2024).
4. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned
Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General, while
opposing the instant application, submitted that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubts,
before the learned Trial Court, and thus, the instant application for
suspension of sentence deserves dismissal.
4.1. It was further submitted that the applicant-appellant hatched
criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused for committing the
crime in question and that the gravity of the offence in question is
quite high and the involvement of the applicant-appellant in the
crime in question was duly proved during the trial.
4.2. It was also submitted that the revolver in question and the
motor cycle were recovered on the basis of the information given
by the co-accused and the applicant-appellant, respectively.
4.3. It was further submitted that apart from the present case,
the applicant-appellant has criminal antecedents of 9 cases, as
registered against him, and out of such cases, only in 3 cases, he
has been acquitted.
[2024:RJ-JD:39875-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-546/2024]
4.4. It was also submitted that in the given circumstances, in
case the present applicant-appellant is granted indulgence of
suspension of sentence, there is every likelihood of such liberty
being misused by him, and thus, on this ground also, he does not
deserve the said indulgence in the instant application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case along with orders referred at the Bar.
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 the applicant-appellant and
the co-accused entered the house of complainant-Rajesh Bai with
an intention to commit theft, during course of which, they had
stolen certain ornaments, revolver of the complainant's husband,
and other articles, and in course whereof, complainant's husband-
Narendra (deceased) came, whereupon, the applicant-appellant
asked co-accused-Dimpi @ Shenki, to shoot, in case of getting
caught; subsequently, co-accused-Dimpi @ Shenki shot the
deceased, thereby causing the murder in question. Such an
unlawful action of the applicant-appellant clearly establishes the
involvement of the applicant-appellant in the heinous crime in
question, the common intention, pre-planning and prior
preparation on his part as well as the co-accused to commit the
crime.
[2024:RJ-JD:39875-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-546/2024]
8. This Court also observes that the police authority, on the
basis of information given by the applicant-appellant, recovered
the motorcycle, which was used to commit the crime in question.
9. This Court further observes that as stated in reply to the
application, filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has been stated
that the applicant-appellant has criminal antecedents to her
discredit, as above, under the various provisions of the IPC.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Consequently the present application for suspension of
sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
