Suspension of sentence requires careful evaluation of the case's evidential gaps, especially in serious offenses like murder.

JUDGMENT :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

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

2. By way of this application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the applicant – original accused seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 373/2013.

3. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present applicant convict has been held guilty for the commission of offences as stated hereinbelow :

4. Learned advocate Mr.Ashish M Dagli for the applicant – original accused would submit that:-

(a) It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of a chit alleged to have been written by the present applicant based on which the call details were calculated and it is claimed that the present applicant who had demanded the ransom amount and since, it was not fulfilled the deceased was murdered.

(b) That the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

(c) That there is no evidence of last seen together.

(d) That it is the case of the prosecution that the dead body was found at the place which was known to the accused. However, the present applicant was not seen with the deceased at such place by any one.

(e) That the panchnama under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not proved in accordance with law. That on comparing with the evidence of the panchnama and discovery, the Investigation Officer differs with regard to the recovery/discovery of gunny bag.

(f) That so-called recovery of the mobile from the terrace has not been identified by panchas before the Court, more particularly, they have stated that the mobile is not the same which was shown to them.

(g) That identification of dead body was also not possible. Thus, whether the dead body was that of Het is not proved. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was found moving along with the deceased and also went to the petrol pump and has also purchased paper. However, no statement to indicate that the applicant and the deceased was seen together have been recorded during the investigation. PW.9 – Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai Hirpara, is alleged to have seen the applicant along with the deceased in the car. However, the panchnama at Exh.93 has not supported the case of the prosecution and merely deposed to the effect his signature was taken. Thus, this witness is not believable.

(h) It is lastly argued that there are various lacunas and missing links to rope the present applicant with the alleged crime and when such chain of circumstances are not proved, no conviction can be handed down upon the applicant and has thus, argued to allow the present application.

5. Learned APP Mr.Pranv Dhagat would submit that the learned Trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons after appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidences on record, more particularly, the depositions of PW-9, PW-12 and PW-14 coupled with the fact that the chit, signature, demand of ransom amount and threatening to murder, the kidnapping of child is proved to have been scribed by the present applicant before the circumstantial evidence of handwriting experts coupled with the fact that each and every circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and when the applicant is convicted for an offence of murder and in absence of any prima facie error apparent on the face of the rec