JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred by the appellant applicant Murari Lal seeking suspension of sentences awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 19.1.2021 in Sessions Case No.13/2018 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below:

2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri J.S. Choudhary, learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Vikas Bijarnia learned counsel representing the complainant and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

3. Shri J.S.Choudhary, learned Sr.Counsel assistned by Shri Pradeep Choudhary representing the accused appellant vehemently and fervently urges that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The incident took place in the early night of 17.4.2018. Subhash who was an intervenor in the incident received the gun shot injury which took place after a sudden fight and expired whereafter, the Police was informed. The Police Officers were present at the spot during the entire night but the members of the complainant party intentionally did not lodge the F.I.R. to the Police Authorities. He pointed out that the injured witnesses Rajbala was got admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 in the night but even then, her relatives did not lodge the F.I.R. to the Police Officers, who had taken the injured to hospital. He further urges that as per the prosecution case, Rakesh Kaswa was married to the sister of the appellant Murari Lal and the coaccused Subhash. There was a dispute between Rakesh and his wife and thus, the parties were not on good terms. As per the prosecution witnesses, the appellant and the co-accused went to the house of Rakesh and were indulging in quarrel with him. Surendra who lives in the neighborhood came around and tried to intervene and to quell the fight and during this altercation, Subhash fired a gun shot which hit Surendra killing him instantly. Shri Choudhary submits that though the prosecution witnesses alleged that the appellant herein was armed with a pistol but admittedly no shot was fired by the appellant. He also pointed out that the trial court acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He thus urges that the appellant who is in custody for the last more than three years, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal:

3. E converso, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Vikas Bijarnia learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant s counsel. They urge that the appellant too was armed with a fire arm and he had gone to the place of incident with the co-accused with the premeditated plan to murder Rakesh. Thus, it was contended that the appellant was clothed with the common object to commit murder. Nevertheless, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant were not in a position to dispute the fact that there was no strife or enmity whatsoever between the accused and the deceased Surendra. As per the admitted prosecution case, the accused and Rakesh were indulged in a squabble with each other and Surendra intervened. In this process, a quarrel flared up and Subhash fired a gunshot from his weapon which hit Surendra killing him instantly on the spot. The Police was informed and the team of Police reached at the spot soon after the incident. The members of the complainant party were present but they intentionally did not submit any F.I.R. to the Police officials, who had come to the spot and were