YASHPAL @ SATPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/applicant has sought suspension of his sentence and to be enlarged on bail in the appeal filed by him against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd September, 2007 and 9th October, 2007 in S.C. No. 1/2005 arising out of FIR 486/2002, P.S. Kalyan Puri under Section 365/396/302/395/412/212/34 of IPC.

(2.) The appellant/applicant has contended that he has already spent 8 1/2 years in judicial custody and his long incarceration has rendered his family destitute. It is further asserted that he has become depressed as he has been unable to fulfill his responsibilities. It is contended that he has a good prima facie case as the Sessions Court did not appreciate the deposition of Ms. Gayatri Devi(PW-4) that four persons went in her son "â„¢s vehicle and who were identified as Sanjay, Manju, Gajender and Devendri and she had not stated anything about the appellant and she was even declared hostile. Reliance has also been placed on the fact that Gayatri Devi did not identify the body of her son which was in a highly decomposed state. In the circumstances, it is contended that the police had got a body of some other person, which was identified as the body of son of Gayatri Devi and implicated the appellant with other co-accused persons. It is further contended that Sh. Gulab Singh (PW-2), before the Court had stated that he was not sure as to who has come to hire the alleged vehicle and therefore, even his deposition could not be relied on. The applicant has also contended that pursuant to disclosure statement, nothing incriminating was recovered and therefore, it is a good case for suspension of sentence and for enlarging him on bail.

(3.) The Sessions Court has held that it has been established that on 5th November, 2002, the deceased was abducted by Sanjay Singh Rathi, Jayant, Yashpal @ Satpal (appellant), Gajendri (since deceased) and Devendri @ Sunita with an intent to secretly and wrongfully confine him and he was taken from his house on the pretext that one patient was to be brought from Khurja that very day. It has also been established that when Ajay Kumar did not return and search was made, his vehicle was spotted near village Nehru Pur, Khurja and the dead body of Ajay Kumar was recovered from fields of Village Nangla Sheikhu on 11th November 2002, after he was murdered on 5th November, 2002 subsequent to his abduction from his house. The Sessions Court has also held that the appellant was arrested, who made disclosure of the fact that the mobile phone of Ajay was in possession of Manju Kumar @ Satender and in pursuance of this discovery, Manju Kumar @ Satender was arrested, from whose possession mobile phone of the deceased was recovered. In the circumstances, the plea of the applicant that nothing incriminating was recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant, prima facie, is not correct. Culpability of the appellant appears to have been made out and in the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to contend that prima facie no case is made out against him.