Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Royal Singh vs The Ut Of J&K on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Puneet Gupta
Supplementary-1 List
Sr. No. 201
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Pronounced On 25.02.2021
CrlM No. 844/2020 in
Crl A(D) No. 15/2020
in
Crl Ref(L) No. 6/2020
Royal Singh ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. R. K. Kotwal, Advocate
Ms. Monika Kohli, Advocate
Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate
Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate
Mr. Fahim Ahmed Mir, Advocate
V/s
The UT of J&K ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Special PP with
Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
CrlM No. 844/2020 in Crl A (D) No. 15/2020 :
1. The appellant-convict Royal Singh, one of the accused in case No. 25-
A/Sessions, vide Judgment dated 10.08.2020 stands convicted by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for offence under Section 302/34 RPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act and vide order of the same date sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 3000/- and in case of default of payment of fine came is to undergo further simple imprisonment of 12 months. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 3/25 Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine the convict is undergo for simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.
2 Crl A(D) No. 15/2020
2. The alleged occurrence of 29.8.2009 resulted into the death of Amandeep Singh who was stated to be shot by the accused Jatinder Singh with desi-katta outside his house. The appellant was also stated to accompanying the said Jatinder Singh and holding pistol at the time of occurrence. FIR 247 of 2009 was registered with police station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in connection with the occurrence. Later on SIT also came to be constituted and more persons were made accused in the case for their alleged post occurrence role. It may be mentioned herein that nine accused were charge sheeted in the challan and six accused stand acquitted by the trial court whereas two of the accused died during the trial.
3. The appellant has filed application for suspension of order of execution of sentence and releasing him on bail on the ground that there is no legal evidence upon which the conviction and sentence has been based. Further as the convict is in custody for the last more than ten years and there may not be possibility of the appeal being heard therefore the sentence of the appellant be suspended and admitted to bail.
4. The objections to the application have been filed wherein the contentions raised for the grant of bail have been rebutted and prayer is for dismissal of the application.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the judgment passed by the trial court is flawed one as the evidence brought on record does not connect the accused with the commission of offence for which he has been convicted and sentenced. Except for the appellant rest of the accused stand acquitted by the trial court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the court through the judgment passed by the trial court in order to impress upon this court that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right prospective. The very 3 Crl A(D) No. 15/2020 weapon of offence alleged to be used in the commission of offence was not proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the very basis of the conviction of the appellant is not justified as his conviction also depended mainly on the case set up against the accused Jatinder Singh who died during the pendency of the challan.
7. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned special public prosecution in the case, has argued that the judgment is well reasoned and the respondent has earned conviction against the appellant as the case of the prosecution was proved beyond shadow of doubt and held so by the trial court. The eye witnesses in the case stood their ground during the examination in the court. The trial court has taken every factual matter into consideration while recording the conviction against the appellant.
8. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the alleged involvement of four other persons in the case and their letting off by the investigating agency and not arraying them as accused in the challan makes the prosecution case murky is again the aspect which cannot be finally commented upon in the present application and cannot be a ground to allow the present application.
9. The court while deciding the application in hand is not required to appreciate the evidence in detail as the same is required to be fathomed when the main appeal is heard on merits. The perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court reveals that the prosecution case hinged upon eye witnesses to the occurrence as well as other evidence. The discrepancies in the prosecution evidence tried to be highlighted, as per the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, do not by itself make out a case for the appellant for the reliefs sought in the application under consideration. The perusal of the 4 Crl A(D) No. 15/2020 impugned judgment does not make out it to be case of no evidence against the appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pleaded that the accused is entitled to bail on the ground that he has been in incarceration for the last more than eleven years and further that there is no possibility of the main appeal being heard in near future. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 800, order dated 31.12.2015 passed by this Court in case titled Joginder Pal Vs. Union of India and others( LPAOW No. 18/2015, MP No. 24/2015) and order dated 18.05.2018 passed by this Court in case titled Rajesh Dogra Vs. State of J&K CRA No. 35/2017 and connected applications.
11. Learned Special PP appearing for the respondent has referred AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1564 and AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1465 in order to impress upon the court that the suspension of sentence and bail can be granted in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine in heinous offences. The present case does not call for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground pleaded by the appellant is what is contended on behalf of the respondent.
12. In criminal appeal titled Hari Ram and others Vs. State of J&K (CRA No. 89/2012 decided on 24.08.2020) this court suspended the sentence and granted the bail to the appellant convicted under Section 302 RPC after taking into consideration the pendency of appeal for the last more than five years and on account of parity with another appellant who was enlarged on bail.
13. Merely for the reason that the appellant is in jail for the last more than eleven years is no ground to grant bail to the appellant. No doubt each case has its own peculiarities and has to be decided on its own merits. 5 Crl A(D) No. 15/2020
14. The court, on consideration of the nature of the offence, sentence awarded and the fact that the appeal is pending disposal for less than a year, finds no reason to allow the prayer made in the application in hand. The application is dismissed. Taking cognizance of the concern of the appellant that appeal may not be taken up for final consideration in near future the court grants liberty to the appellant to move application for listing of the case for final disposal in case the appeal is not taken up for consideration within reasonable period.
(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
25.02.2021
Shammi
SHAMMI KUMAR
2021.02.25 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document