Suspension of sentence in a serious offence requires substantial evidence and consideration of the likelihood of acquittal; conviction cannot stand without corroboration.

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.8 – Bharatsinh Dilubha Jadeja under Section 430 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.9 along with other accused were convicted. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr.N.D.Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin appearing for the applicant has mainly contended as follows :

(a) That present accused No.8 Bharatsinh has alleged to have travelled from Rajkot to Ahmedabad with other co-accused on 15.6.2006 in Tata Sumo Car of PW 54 – Aniruddhsinh who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.

(b) That despite the fact that the present accused was not known to PW 54 – Aniruddhsinh, no test identification parade was conducted to confirm that the present accused travelled in Tata Sumo along with other co-accused.

(c) That learned trial Court has relied upon the statement under section 164 of CrPC made by Aniruddhsinh – PW 54 despite the fact that he has turned hostile and has denied of having made any statement before the learned Magistrate.

(d) It is the case of the prosecution that the present accused had travelled in Tata Sumo car of PW 54 – Aniruddhsinh from Rajkot to Ahmedabad on 15.6.2006 with one base-ball bate and three pipes which were placed in the bag in the said Tata Sumo car. However, PW 54 has turned hostile and has further not stated anything about the bag in which alleged base-ball bat and pipes were placed in his statement before the learned Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC.

(e) That the prosecution has failed to prove that the present accused has travelled in Maruti van and thus theory of conspiracy is also not proved.

(f) That learned trial Judge has relied upon inadmissible evidence i.e. demonstration panchnama that t