AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the application for suspension of sentence.
Counsel for the appellants submits that accused were on bail during trial. A case is not otherwise made out against them to convict for the offence under Section 364(A) and 386 IPC. No evidence exists for demand of ransom and its satisfaction. In regard to allegation of kidnapping of Sunney Patel, material witnesses produced by the prosecution turned hostile. This include Sunney Patel and his relatives. The prosecution case has, thus, not been supported by material witnesses. The court should have acquitted the accused in those circumstances. In any case, the application for suspension of sentence be allowed. It is more so when even the arrest of the accused has been shown at Police Station, Jaipur whereas as per the statements of PW/7 Likhmaram and PW/12 Jitendra Singh, they were taken in custody at Ajmer.
No Roznamcha or any document for it has been produced to prove custody at Ajmer. Thus, the prayer made by the appellants may be accepted.
The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and submits that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. They had obtained not only call details but recorded the conversation and produced it as Ex.P/9. The conversation itself proves, kidnap and demand of ransom. The prosecution has otherwise proved that Sunney Patel was found with two accused when they were taken in custody in the secluded area near Ajmer
Bus Stand. It is also stated that even stay at Pushkar was proved.
It is not that accused came at their own at the Police Station and arrested there. The witnesses have been produced to prove custody of the accused at Ajmer.
Even the hostile witnesses have supported the prosecution case and to that extent, there statements can be relied. The statements of hostile witnesses are otherwise corroborated by other evidence in the form of call details.
The conversation recorded by the police apart from stay of the accused at Pushkar and thereupon recovery of Sunney Patel along with two accused at Ajmer proves the case. There are corroborative evidence in the form of stamp papers and to deposit the entire amount in the Bank Account, disclosed by the accused.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the application for suspension of sentence may not be accepted.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.Any comment at this stage on the facts of the case may cause prejudice to either of the parties while arguing the appeal finally. We are thus refraining ourselves to make comment on the fats of the case, but taking into consideration the evidenced produced by the prosecution and after going through the finding of the trial court, we do not find it to be a case for suspension of sentence. The application for suspension of sentence is accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for the appellants is directed to prepare the paper book and file it at the earliest. Immediately on filing the paper book, let the appeal be listed for hearing.