Suspension of sentence requires consideration of evidence credibility and likelihood of acquittal; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with independent witness testimony being crucial.

JUDGMENT :

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 1145/2025

1. The present application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant/appellant, seeking Suspension of Sentence in FIR No.775/2014 dated 17.06.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 365 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Subject FIR) registered at Police Station Narela.

2. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is that on 17.06.2014 at about 7:55 a.m., DD No. 10-A was recorded at P.S. Narela regarding an incident of firing near Lampur Road, Narela, in which one person was stated to have sustained a gun-shot injury. On receipt of the information, SI Amit along with Ct. Lilu Ram reached the spot. There they met the complainant, Ramesh Chand Garg, who stated that at about 6:10 a.m. he had gone to his shop bearing No. 1973/2B, Lampur Road, Narela, and while goods were being unloaded at about 7:40 a.m., a white Maruti Eeco Car stopped near his shop. Two young men alighted, pointed a pistol at him and asked him to sit inside the Eeco. On his refusal, both attempted to force him into the vehicle; one shot was fired towards the ground and another in his direction, which he escaped. In the meantime, a third associate got down from the Eeco, caught hold of him from behind and all three tried to push him into the vehicle. The boy holding the pistol then fired again with the intention to shoot him; the bullet, however, passed close to the complainant’s head and struck the associate who had held him from behind. That associate fell on the ground, while the other assailants fled in the Eeco.

3. At the scene, three empty cartridges and one live cartridge were recovered. The injured person was shifted to SRHC Hospital by PCR, where he was declared “brought dead”. On enquiry, the deceased was identified as Praveen, s/o Mahabir, resident of Swatantra Nagar, Narela. On the basis of the complainant’s statement, the Subject FIR was registered and investigation commenced.

4. During the course of investigation, the Maruti Eeco vehicle was traced and several suspects were identified. On 26.06.2014, co-accused Arun and Parveen (s/o Dharam Pal) were arrested. Their disclosure statements, inter alia, referred to a plan allegedly conceived on the previous evening for abducting the complainant for ransom.

5. On 14.08.2014, the applicant/appellant and co-accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja were apprehended. From the appellant’s possession, a country-made pistol with live cartridges in its magazine was recovered, for which a seizure memo was prepared.

6. Test Identification Proceedings (TIP) were thereafter conducted. The complainant did not identify the applicant/appellant in the TIP held on 25.08.2014; however, on the same day, a supplementary statement under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded to the effect that he had hesitated during TIP and that the applicant/appellant was the person who had fired at him.

7. The case property, including the pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant, the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased and the three fired cartridge cases lifted from the spot, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL report opined that the bullet and the fired cartridge cases had been fired through the said pistol.

8. Upon completion of the investigation, a Charge-Sheet was filed on 22.09.2014.

9. By the Order on Charge dated 03.06.2015, charges were framed against the applicant/appellant for the offences under Section 120B of the IPC