Suspending a sentence for a serious offence like murder requires a rare demonstration of exceptional circumstances, without re-evaluating evidence during bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

Heard Mr. Rana Sanjay, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) read with 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’), wherein the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 07.10.2024 rendered by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur in Sessions Trial 102 of 2021, arising out of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this Court has admitted the appeal and, at present, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail and for suspension of sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has supplied the copy of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and referred the same. Thereafter, he would mainly contend that in the present case though the informant, who is the mother of the deceased, has projected herself as eye-witness, in fact, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it transpires that P.W. 1 (informant) is not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question. Learned counsel has mainly placed reliance upon paragraphs 5 and 6 of the deposition of the said witness.

5. Learned counsel submits that there are major contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter, referred to deposition given by P.W. 2, investigating officer, who has conducted the investigation. It is submitted that from paragraphs 9 to 13 of the cross-examination of the said witness, it is revealed that in the CCTV footage as narrated by the said witness from the place of occurrence, it has been noticed that the informant and her daughter-in-law came from the house to the place of occurrence after the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the investigating officer has also stated that the present appellant was not seen in the CCTV footage. Learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution has mainly contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the Trial Court has convicted the appellant and, therefore, this Court may release the appellant on bail and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court be suspended.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and suspension of sentence of the appellant. Learned APP for the State has also referred the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and, thereafter, contended that, in fact, the informant is the eye-witness of the occurrence in question and she has narrated in detail in her examination-in-chief with regard to the manner of occurrence. In fact, she has identified the accused including the appellant. It is further submitted that from the deposition given