MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicants Manjit Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh and Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh S/o Kiran Singh, who have been convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 24/2011 vide judgment dtd. 7/6/2018.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, representing the appellant-applicants, at the outset, does not press the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant- applicant Manjit Singh. However, regarding the applicant No. 2 Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh, he contended that his case is in no manner distinguishable from that of the co-accused Kailash Dan @ K.D. Charan and Mahaveer Singh, whose sentences have been suspended by this court. He urges that there is a clear distinction in the prosecution case regarding the manner in which the assault was made inasmuch as Ram Singh, Vicky Singh, Balveer @ Banuda and Manjit Singh are alleged to be occupants of the first vehicle from which Anand Pal Singh fired fatal gunshot at the deceased Rakesh. He urges that so far as the remaining accused including the applicant Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh are concerned, they were admittedly present in the second vehicle and none of the occupants of the said vehicle was armed with any weapon. He, thus, urges that the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the applicant accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh deserves to be accepted on parity.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, they too are not in position to dispute the fact that case of Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh is in no manner distinguishable from that of the co-accused Kailash Dan @ K.D. Charan and Mahaveer Singh, whose applications for suspension of sentences have been allowed by this court and who were alleged to be the occupants of the second vehicle from which no gunshot was admittedly fired.