Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
Satyendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No.1006 of 2023 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2023 Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No.559 of 2023 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2023, D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No.852, 1274 of 2023 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.365, 380 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. with Mr. Hem Bhushan Vedi, Mr. Nonit Hatila, Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudhir Jain, Mr. Parth Sharma, Mr. Monu Kumar, Mr. Parth Vashishth, Mr. Shivraj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Javed Choudhary, AGA.

The suspension of sentence can be granted considering the duration of custody and inconclusive evidence relating to the case, emphasizing fair treatment of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389 - Suspension of sentence - Accused-applicants have applied for suspension of sentence after more than five years in custody - Factors considered include prior bail status, custody duration, cross-firing incident, and inconclusive ballistic report on firearms - Applications for suspension of sentence allowed with conditions. (Paras 5, 8)

(B) Witnesses - The testimony of related and chance witnesses questioned, raising doubts about their reliability and presence at the crime scene. (Paras 5)

Facts of the case:
The accused-applicants were on bail during trial and have been in custody for over five years. The case involved cross-firing, and a firearm retrieved from one accused was not linked to the incident as per ballistic evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to grant suspension of sentence based on the long detention, the nature of the crime, and testimony discrepancies.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the accused-applicants should be granted suspension of sentence considering the evidence and their prior custodial status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the significant time spent in custody, combined with inconclusive evidence regarding the firearm's use, justified the granting of suspension of sentence. The court emphasized that all relevant factors in pre-trial circumstances must be considered.

Result: Applications for suspension of sentence are allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and victim notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments for and against suspension of sentence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's reasoning for granting suspension. (Para 7 , 8)
4. order for suspension of sentence issued. (Para 9)

ORDER :

It is informed by learned Additional Government Advocate that victim has been intimated about filing of the appeal as well as suspension of sentence application. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim.

2. Report in this regard has been submitted by the Additional Government Advocate and the same is taken on record.

3. Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

5. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that applicants Nandu, Waseem and Kishan Jangam were on bail during trial and all have remained in custody for a period of more than five years. It is also contended that as per the report which was received by the Police; there was cross firing between the two groups. It is further contended that one firearm has been recovered from Nandu, however, as per the FSL report, the bullets were not fired with this firearm. The Court has wrongly interpreted this report. It is further contended that PW/2 is a related witness and PW/3 who is a friend of the deceased is a chance witness and the possibility of their being at the place of occurrence is doubtful for the very reason that they were with the Police to see CCTV footage and to ascertain as to who were present at the scene. It is further contended that PW-3 has deposed that the deceased has informed that Bhupendra has murdered him, which goes to show that PW-3 was not an eye witness.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the suspension of sentence applications.

7. We have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the fact that accused- Nandu, Waseem and Kishan Jangam were on bail during trial and also taking note of the custody period which is more than five years and also the fact that it is a case of cross firing and the bullets which were recovered from the place of occurrence were not fired from the firearm which has been recovered from Nandu, we deem it proper to allow the applications for suspension of sentence.

9. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicants in Sessions Case No.159/2016, shall remain suspended if the accused-applicants furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document