The court establishes that proper assessment of evidence is crucial for suspension of sentence in serious offences.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. RAVAL, J.

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

2. The present application is preferred by the applicants-original accused under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for suspension of sentence awarded to them vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.5.2025 by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Halol in Sessions Case No.3 of 2020.

3. Learned advocate Mr.P.J.Patel appearing for the applicants has mainly contended as follows :

(a) That there are so many contradictions in the depositions of the complainant, victim and other witnesses.

(b) That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

(c) That recovery of weapon is also not proved in accordance with law.

(d) That learned trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the accused based on the oral evidence which is not trustworthy.

(e) That the impugned judgment delivered by learned trial Court is manifestly erroneous, patently perverse, ex facie illegal and in flagrant violation of the principles of appreciation and evaluation of evidences in criminal trial and has argued to allow the present application.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Pranav Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and has vehemently opposed the present application. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned order after appreciating both the oral as well as documentary evidences and hence, no interference is required. Under the circumstances, learned APP has argued to reject the present application.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the charges levelled against the present accused.

6. The issue arises as to whether the applicants have made out a case for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 or not?

7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the both the sides. We have also perused the impugned judgement and order. In a serious offence of attracting the punishment under section 302 of IPC, the Appellate Court has to assess the record only to see as to whether there is any apparent or gross error on which this Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the decision in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another, (2023) 6 SCC 123. It has been observed while considering the scope of Section 389 of CrPC as under :

“30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638, this Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the courts while granting benefit under Section 389CrPC in cases involving serious offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the observations made therein, which are as follows: (SCC PP. 639-40, paras 4-6)

"4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be car