The court underscored the necessity of a rigorous evidentiary standard for convictions, particularly in serious offenses like murder, mandating a cautious approach regarding suspension of sentences pending appeal.

ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. The present application is preferred by original accused No.6 – Ghanshyamsinh Pathubha Chudasama under Section 430 (1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for suspension of sentence awarded to him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.2.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.16, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.185 of 2009.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:

3.1. On 15th June, 2006 deceased Pankajbhai Trivedi was assaulted by four unknown assailants around 8.30 p.m., near Ellisbridge Gymkhana in the city of Ahmedabad. He received fatal injuries and the injuries were caused with baseball bat and other weapons. He died instantaneously. The FIR was lodged by one Ramesh Vishvakarma on the same night at about 11.15 p.m. The police commenced investigation and it revealed that the deceased had criticized certain activities of the leaders of Swadhyay Parivar headed by late Pandurang Athavle Shastri and one Dhanshri Talvalkar, popularly known as Jayshri Didi. The criticizm was made even during the lifetime of Athavleji. Hence, large number of followers of Athavleji had expressed their strong resentment against the deceased and his group. As a result of this, numerous complaints were also filed against the deceased in different criminal Courts for the alleged defamatory publications made by him. The deceased was arrested, but later on released on bail. That was sometime in September/October 2005. It also appears from the record that the criminal proceedings in respect of one publication are still alive; whereas criminal complaints which were filed against another alleged defamatory publication has been quashed. It also transpires from the investigation material that certain people hatched conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased and the assault on 15th night was the result of such conspiracy.

3.2 After completion of trial, the present applicant – original accused No.6 along with other accused were convicted. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Devang Vyas assisted by learned advocate Mr.J.S.Thakkar appearing for the applicant has mainly contended as follows :

(a) That present accused No.6 alleged to have visited Roshni Guest House as per the prosecution case, however, factum of present accused having visited Roshni Guest House is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the owner of Roshni Guest House as well as Manager of Roshni Guest House have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

(b) It is also the case of the prosecution that present accused had called Cammando and asked as to what had happened near Gymkhana and after receiving information immediately disconnected the phone. However, the said factum is not proved beyond reasonable doubt from the depositions of any of the witnesses.

(c) That muddamal recovered from the present accused is also not proved by the panch witnesses. However, relying upon the deposition of the Investigating Officer, without the contents of the panchnama having brought on record, in view of the deposition of the officer alleged to have prepared such panchnama, learned trial Court has relied upon such panchnama which is not permissible.

(d) That no call details record have been duly proved by the prosecution nor the phone number in the name of the present accused is proved nor it is proved that sim card allotted to Raghubhai is used by the present accused. Despite these facts, learned tria