Sanjay Pandey vs State

By this application, under Section 389 CrPC, the applicant-appellant seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by learned Sessions Judge,

Didwana, District Nagaur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) vide judgment dated 28.02.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternate 302/149, 307 in alternate 307/149, 450 and Section 148 IPC.

In support of the application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that initially in Parcha Bayan/ FIR, two co-

accused viz. Anand Pal Singh and Manjeet Singh were named, however, the applicant was not named. It is submitted that the trial court, after considering the evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused Manjeet Singh. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that first informant PW.1-Gopal - the injured, in his police statements and other eye-witnesses did not name the applicant during police investigation. It is further argued that even at the time of filing of charge-sheet, the police failed to collect any material against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the testimony of other eye-witnesses viz. Pramod-PW.2, Ramchandra-PW.4, Inderchand-PW8, Raghunath- PW.10

and Pappu alias Ramprakash-PW.11 are not reliable as they have improved a lot in their court statements, which resulted into serious contradictions in their statements recorded during police investigation and court statements.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is behind the bars from around 14 years and the appeal preferred by him will take time in hearing and, therefore, on this ground also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is guilty of brutally killing two persons along with other co-accused persons.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have invited our attention towards the statements of PW.1-Gopal, who himself was injured in the incident. They have submitted that the said witness had identified the applicant during the identification parade and also identified the applicant during court statements while specifically stating that the applicant was one of the persons, who fired gunshots, resulted in murdering of two

persons. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have also invited our attention towards the statements of

PW.2-Pramod, PW.4- Ramchandra, PW.8-Indrachand, PW.10-Raghunathram and PW.11- Pappu alias Ramprakash and submitted that all these

witnesses, during their police statements as well as the court statements, specifically identified the applicant and also levelled allegations that he fired the gunshots, resulted in murder of two persons.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial court is not liable to be suspended.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the injured as well as the eye- witnesses have specifically named the applicant since beginning, therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to hold that the applicant is convicted and sentenced by the trial court without there being any evidence.

Hence, no case for suspending the sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial court is made out. The application for suspension of sentence is,

therefore, rejected.