AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and public prosecutor for the State. We have carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned as also the record of the trial court.
This application seeking suspension of sentence is filed by the applicant Dev Kishan who has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/120B, 147, 148 and 449 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment as under:
Under Section 302/120B IPC
to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months.
Under Section 147 IPC
To undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
Under Section 148 IPC
To undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 449 IPC
To undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the trial court has seriously erred in not accepting the plea of alibi raised by the applicant. It is submitted that the statement of the eye witnesses Hanumanaram (PW-5), Shriram (PW-6), Bhagirath (PW-7) and Dharamveer (PW-8) apparently suffer from inconsistencies and exaggeration. That apart, all these witnesses being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence showing that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy found proved by the trial court. It is submitted that as per deposition of the investigation officer Satish Chandra Jangid (PW-33), the applicant was on duty at the time of incident and thus, apparently he has been falsely implicated in the case.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the application being D.B. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1085/16 preferred by co-accused Sahiram & Fauji, Shanker Lal, Vikaspuri, Teja Ram, Girdhari Lal & Chetan Ram has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.8.17 as not pressed and the case against the applicant is not different. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the application seeking suspension of sentence being No.473/2017 filed on behalf of co-accused Chetan Ram who was also convicted for offence under Section 302/120B IPC and is similarly situated qua the applicant has already been dismissed vide order dated 16.8.17, as not pressed. It is submitted that the applications seeking suspension of sentence being D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.948/16 & 1042/18 filed on behalf of co-accused Mohd. Ameen & Mohan Ram have also been dismissed vide order dated 4.10.16 & 1.10.18 respectively and a second application being No.370/18 seeking suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of co-accused Mohd. Ameen stands dismissed vide order dated 30.7.18. Learned public prosecutor urged that the eye witnesses (PW-5) Hanumanaram, (PW-6) Shriram, (PW-7) Bhagirath, (PW-8) Dharamveer and (PW-9) Kamal Kumar have deposed that the applicant along with co-accused Sahi Ram, Shankar Lal, Mohan Ram, Teja Ram, Chetan Ram, Vikas Puri, Girdhari Lal, Dr. Sunil and Mohd. Ameen came on the spot and caused death of Ram Kishan Siyag. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the applicant in criminal conspiracy also stands proved on the basis of the cogent evidence on record.
A bare perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses (PW-5) Hanumanaram, (PW-6) Shriram, (PW-7) Bhagirath, (PW-8) Dharamveer and (PW-9) Kamal Kumar clearly indicates involvement of the applicant in the commission of the crime. The statement of these witnesses prima-facie do not suffer from any such inconsistencies or exaggeration as suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applications preferred by the co-accused seeking suspension of sentence already stand dismissed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant.
Accordingly, the application seeking suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant is dismissed.