IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

3 of 2023 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 of 2016 ==========================================================

BHARATBHAI DINABHAI JAMOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR B B NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 05/07/2023

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY)

1. RULE. Learned APP Ms.Krina Calla waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for suspension of sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.196 of 2010 and Sessions Case No.183 of 2010, whereby the applicant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as the “IPC”)and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 2 (Two) months is imposed. The applicant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 2(Two) years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 1 (One) month is imposed. It is also ordered that sentence imposed upon the applicant runs concurrently.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.B.Naik appearing with Mr.Ekant Ahuja, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the role attributed to the present applicant in connection with the offence is to the effect that he had collected money from Aangadiya Pedhi. No other overt act has been attributed to the present applicant in the entire incident.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the present applicant, though identified in Test Identification Parade, has not been identified by the P.W. No.28, who happens to be the Manager of Aangadiya Pedhi from whom the applicant is alleged to have collected the money.

3.2 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the discovery of the currency notes at the hands of the present applicant is not duly proved in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He also argued that even if for the sake of argument, it is considered that such discovery is proved against the applicant, the same merely has a corroborative value and it cannot be said to be a substantive piece of evidence against the present applicant. Except this, there is no material whatsoever to connect the present applicant with the offence in question.

3.3 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the applicant has already undergone sentence of 6 years and 6 months. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail by suspending sentence imposed upon him.

4. The application is opposed by learned APP Ms.Krina Calla. She submitted that the present applicant was actively involved in the conspiracy hatched for commission of the offence in question. As a part of the said conspiracy, the applicant had collected money from Aangadiya Pedhi after the victim was kidnapped. The currency notes, which have been seized from the house of the present applicant have been identified to be belonging to the Aangadiya Pedhi. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the present applicant for the offence in question. She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. As per the case of prosecution, the victim w