Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdha vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 April, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:17494-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 981/2023
Kaliya @ Kala Khan S/o Sh. Bilal, Aged About 67 Years, B/c
Muslim, R/o Mapuri, P.s. Gadra Road, District Barmer. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 248/2022
Ramdha S/o Shri Mussa, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Muslim,
R/o Bhabhuto Ki Dhani, Binzrad Police Station, Barmer, District
Barmer. (Lodged In District Jail Barmer/ Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ranjana Singh Mertia.
Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order Reserved on 22/04/2024 Pronounced 25/04/2024
1. These criminal misc. suspension of sentence applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C. have been preferred seeking suspension of sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2020 passed by (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17494-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-981/2023] the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Barmer, in Sessions Case No.1/2020 (37/2010, 04/2016), whereby while convicting the applicants-appellants Ramdha & Kaliya @ Kala for the offences under Sections 5, 6, 9-B of the Explosives Act, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections 3/25, 7/25 (1) (d) (1-AA) & Section 29 of Arms Act, Sections 3/10, 13, 18 & 20 of Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act and Sections 153-A & 120-B IPC, the applicants-appellants was ordered to undergo Life Imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of which, each of the applicants-appellants was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant- Kaliya @ Kala Khan in SOS Application No. 981/2023, submitted that apart from the mobile phone, nothing has been recovered from the said applicant-appellant and no specific evidence was recorded in the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.08.2020 which could connect the applicant-appellant with the crime in question. 2.1. It was further submitted that the two witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution to render their statements against the applicant-appellant have turned hostile during the trial and therefore, there is no evidence against the applicant-appellant in regard to the crime in question. It was further submitted that the other co-accused's suspension of sentence application has already been allowed, therefore, the applicant's-appellant's suspension of sentence application also deserves to be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant- Ramdha in SOS Application No. 248/2022, submitted that as per the (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17494-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-981/2023] prosecution witnesses, no recovery has been made from the applicant-appellant, and the prosecution story clearly failed to establish any participation of the applicant-appellant with the main accused in the crime in question.
3.1. It was further submitted that the applicant-appellant was on bail during trial and now after conviction, he has already undergone almost 6 years of sentence, and therefore, his suspension of sentence application deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the suspension of sentence applications, submitted that in SOS Application No. 981/2023, the applicant-appellant is a habitual offender and actively involved in the illegal business of explosive substances, and he also has criminal antecedents of total 4 cases including the present one, registered against the applicant- appellant in various provisions of criminal law. 4.1. It was further submitted that the mobile phone was recovered from the applicant-appellant and as per call records, various calls from Pakistan were found to have taken place, which clearly shows the involvement of the applicant-appellant in the activities against the national security. It was also submitted that the applicant-appellant was involved in heinous offence and the impugned judgment of conviction was passed by the learned Trial Court, after considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case and after due appreciation of the material and evidence placed on record before it.
4.2. It was further submitted that the other co-accused's suspension of sentence application was not allowed on merits, it (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17494-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-981/2023] was granted only on the basis of 10 years or more custody period as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor in SOS Application No. 248/2022, submitted that the applicant-appellant was completely involved in the crime in question and the same was proved through the evidence placed on record before the learned Trial Court, and on the basis of the same, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction, which is justified in law.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
7. This Court observes that the applicants-appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2020 under the aforementioned provisions of law and were ordered to undergo Life Imprisonment alongwith fine. Both the applicants- appellants preferred the present suspension of sentence applications against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
8. This Court further observes that both the applicants- appellants were involved in supply of explosive weapons from Pakistan to terrorist organization in Punjab, and the concerned police authority conducted the search and seizure, as per law, and recovered the explosive weapons.
9. This Court also observes that both the applicants-appellants were involved in heinous offences i.e. supply of weapons to terrorist organization having their links in Pakistan, thus, the chances of national security being compromised cannot be ruled out, and therefore, the sentences awarded to them by the (Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:44:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17494-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-981/2023] learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not deserve to be suspended.
10. This Court further observes that during the trial, the prosecution has produced total 79 witnesses and exhibited 177 documents, and the same were duly examined by the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
11. This Court also observes that both the applicants-appellants have not completed the minimum custody period of 10 years and thus do not fall under the said category at this stage, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sonadhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, order dated 15.09.2022) and Saudan Singh Vs. The State of U.P (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. No.4633/2021, order dated 05.10.2021))
12. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicants-appellants by the learned Trial Court at this stage.
13. Consequently, the present applications for Suspension of Sentence are dismissed.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2024 at 08:44:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)