YOGESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been made by the appellant Yogesh for suspension of sentence. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Section 324 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant, in company of three more accused persons had committed an armed robbery on 10th March, 1994 of Rs.8 lac from victims Ravinder Kaur, Surjeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh with the help of weapons like Mouser, two country-made pistols etc. Two of the co-accused Sanjay and Praveen were convicted under Section 324/34, 394/34 IPC and under Arms Act as well. It was a daring daylight robbery causing injuries to the victims. In the application, it is stated by the appellant that no stolen money was recovered from the appellant and the amount was recovered from the other two co-accused persons. The appellant was convicted only because he had refused to join TIP and he was falsely implicated. I do not find merits in the contention raised by the appellant. A perusal of judgment would show that there was sufficient evidence apart from refusal of TIP on which trial court relied. It would not be appropriate to discuss the evidence at this stage to pre-empt the appeal.

(2.) The appellant relied upon 1992(2) CLR 148 Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and pleaded that Court should liberally suspend the sentence and suspension should be refused only in exceptional circumstances. Supreme Court in recent judgment in case Gomti v. Thakurdas and Ors. 2007 Crl.L.J.2431 observed as under:

(3.) Considering the nature of offence and the manner in which the offence was committed, I do not think that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. The appellant in well planned manner, with the help of co-convicts executed the robbery in dare-devil manner putting the life of victims under threat of death. The offence committed is very grave. A perusal of judgment shows that it is a reasoned judgment. The application is hereby dismissed.