AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Considered I.A. No.3162/2019, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellants - Prathiviraj Kanjar, Anil Kanjar, Ashok Kanjar, Rohit Kanjar, Sitaram Kanjar and Kailash Kanjar.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh vide its judgement dated 21.02.2019 passed in S. T. No.89/2016.
As per the prosecution story, on 12.12.2015 at around 7.30 PM, two persons boarded Indore-Kota Express Train No.19802 at railway station Kumbharaj whereas, four persons stood outside. They pointed guns and committed loot from the passengers of the general bogie. The persons who had entered the bogie snatched valuables and the bags of the passengers and threw them out, which were collected by other co-accused persons and one of the accused person thereafter made off.
The report was lodged at Police Station GRP Biaora. During investigation, looted items were recovered from the accused persons and one of the person who had entered the bogie was identified in the test identification parade and from the rest, looted items were recovered.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that only on the basis of recovery of items, it cannot be stated that they had committed loot.
During submissions, counsel for the appellants seek to withdraw application for suspension filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Prathiviraj Kanjar, who had been identified in the test identification parade.
Prayer allowed.
Accordingly, application filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Prathiviraj Kanjar stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Regarding rest of the appellants, he has submitted that bare recovery of looted items does not make them liable for committing loot and suspension has been sought on this ground.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application for suspension of jail sentence and submits that as per prosecution story only, there were only two persons inside the bogie, who could have been identified and rest of the accused persons were waiting outside the bogie as per the plan. These persons had collected the items thrown from the bogie by the co-accused persons and therefore, in the night, it was not possible to identify those persons.
The submissions made by the State are apparently appropriate submissions. Further, recovery of looted items soon after the incident raises a presumption against them that they were involved in looting. This presumption should have been rebutted appropriately, which is not the case here. Hence, no case for suspension of jail sentence is made out. I.A. No.3162/2019 accordingly stands rejected.
List for final hearing in due course.