Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1951 (RAJ)

Sehjad Ahmed v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P.

2022-07-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Admit. 2. Issue notice. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, notice need not be issued. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.409/2022. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the para 19 of the impugned order, which reads as follows :- ^^19- xokg ih MCY;w 8 txnh'k pUnz vkjeksj gS] ftlesa vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 21-12-2014 dks iqfyl ykbZu mn;iqj esa vkeksZj ds in ij jgrs gq, izdj.k la[;k 714@2014 esa tIr'kqnk fiLVy dks diM+s dh Fksyh esa lhyfpV fd, gq, rgjhj ds lkFk odZ'kkWi iqfyl ykbu esa ysdj vk,] diM+s dh FkSyh ekdZ ,l gS ftlesa ls ,d fiLVy fudkyk ftldk rduhdh fujh{k.k fd;k tks Qk;j vkElZ dh vkXus; 'kL= dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA tIr'kqnk fiLVy ds ckWMh ij fuekZ.k dRrkZ dk uke vaxzsth esa vksuyh] vksuyh] vksuyh vafdr Fkk vkSj LykbZM ij vksVks fiLVy uEcj 100 rFkk e>y dh rjQ uEcj 100 [kqnk gqvk gks ns'kh Fkk ftlds cSjy dk cksj -32 cksj gksdj blls 7-65 ,e,e dk dkjrwr eSXthu esa Hkjdj rFkk ,d ,d lh/kk pSEcj esa Mkydj Qk;j djus ls ,d ckj esa ,d jkmUM gh Qk;j gksrk gSA mDr fiLVy dk esdfute pkyw gkyr esa gksus ls blls Qk;j fd;k tk ldrk gSA ckn fujh{k.k tCr'kqnk fiLVy dh LykbZM ij eu fujh{k.kdrkZ ds uke dk v{kj tslh 58@14 igpku ds fy, vafdr dj mlh diM+s dh FkSyh esa j[kdj lhy ls lhyfpV dj fujh{k.k fjiksVZ ds lkFk Jh jktsUnzflag ,,lvkbZ dks lqiqnZ fd;kA iqfyl Fkkuk fgj.kexjh tIr'kqnk gfFk;kj dh tkap gsrqa vkeksZj dks nh x;h rgjhj izn'kZ ih&9 gS ftl ij , ls ch izkfIr jlhn ,oa gLrk{kj gS rFkk izn'kZ ih&10 tIr'kqnk fiLVy dh gLrdyeh fjiksVZ gS ftl ij , ls ch mlds gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh fjiksVZ gS rFkk nks ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gSA^^ 6. It is clear from the aforementioned paragraphs as well as the statement of PW-8 Jagdish Chandra, who is the Armour, that the pistol in question was a local made pistol of .32 bore with 7.65 MM ammunition. The PW-8 has also stated in his deposition that the pistol would fire one round at a time. 7. It is clear from the aforementioned paragraphs as well as the statement of PW-8 Jagdish Chandra, who is the Armour, that the pistol in question was a local made pistol of .32 bore with 7.65 MM ammunition. The PW-8 has also stated in his deposition that the pistol would fire one round at a time. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the persons in the matter have been acquitted for the charges levellved against them under Section 384 & 120-B of IPC whereas only the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 7 of the Arms Act deals with prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition, which are defined under Section 2-H & 2-I of the Arms Act and the present weapon does not fall in the same category. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at best, learned trial court could have convicted the petitioner under Section 3 of Arms Act where the punishment is from one year to three years. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the suspension of sentence application, but is unable to refute the aforesaid submissions. 10. On conjoint reading of Section 7 and 3 of the Arms Act, this Court is convinced that the learned trial court has not dealt with the issue of prohibited weapon / ammunition properly, thus, is inclined to grant the application of suspension of sentence. 11. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused applicant-appellant. Accordingly, S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No. 409/2022 filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 04.05.2022 in Session Case No.19/2017 (CIS NO.227/2017) against appellant- Sehjad Ahmed @ Chini S/o Abdul Gaffar shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 05.08.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, they will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused appellant do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.