JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence No.133/2021.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is argued that PW-8 Sunita has deposed before the trial court that her husband was last seen with the appellant-applicant and one Dharmendra. It is also submitted that Dharmendra has not even been charge- sheeted by the police. It is further submitted that though the police have recovered a rifle at the instance of the appellant- applicant, but the prosecution has failed to prove that the said rifle was used by the appellant-applicant in commission of crime. It is also submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in observing that since the dead body of the deceased was recovered near the house of the appellant-applicant and it is a strong circumstantial evidence against him, but at the same time, the trial court has failed to consider that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from an open place, which cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of the appellant-applicant. Learned counsel