The credibility and consistency of evidence, particularly the contradiction between eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, can influence the court's decision in a suspension of sentences application.

JUDGMENT

1. Despite opportunity being provided, learned Public Prosecutor has not filed reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. The appellant applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 read with Sections 149, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 4/2014 (59/2014)).

4. Shri Pradeep Shah and Shri D.S. Udawat, Advocates representing the applicants herein, vehemently and fervently urged that ex-facie, implication of the present applicants in the case is false and fabricated. Drawing the Courts attention to the statements of the injured prosecution witness No. 5 Shrawan Singh who alleged that and the Medical Officer Dr. Surendra Mohan Gurjar (PW-26), who conducted postmortem upon the body of Deep Singh, they urged that ex-facie the allegations set out in the testimony of the eye-witness are materially contradicted by the medical evidence inasmuch as, not even a solitary injury by a blunt weapon was noticed upon the deadbody when the doctor conducted postmortem. They further contended that only three stab injuries were noticed on the deadbody when it was subjected to postmortem. The postmortem report does not indicate that any of the internal organs of the deceased were harmed by the injuries and thus, as per learned counsel Shri Shah and Shri Udawat, the implication of the applicants other than Dayaram and Vagaram, who were allegedly armed with sharp weapon, is false and fabricated. They thus urged that the appellants applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentences awarded to them during pendency of the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Amitabh Acharya, Advocate representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that only three stab injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased when the Medical Officer Dr. Surendra Mohan Gurjar (PW-26) conducted postmortem upon the deadbody of the deceased Deep Singh and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/49). As per the evidence of the material prosecution eye witness Shrawan Singh (PW-5), the accused Dayaram and Vagaram were armed with sharp weapons (Chhura) whereas, the other accused (i.e. the applicants herein) were alleged to be armed with blunt weapons. As per the postmortem report and evidence of doctor, all three injuries noticed on the body of the deceased were described as stab wounds, meaning thereby, the same were inflicted by a knife like piercing weapon. Manifestly thus, the applicants have strong ground to assail their conviction inasmuch as, the evidence of the eye witness regarding their involvement in the assault is contradicted by the medical evidence on material aspect. The hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.

6. In this background and having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record, without commenting on the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences.

7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 in Sessions Case No. 4/2014 (59/2014)) against the appellants- applicants (1) Rawaram, (2) Dinesh, (3) Tekaram, (4) Moolaram, (5) Lalaram and (6) Asaram, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to t