ORDER :

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Garima Vyas D/o. Avinash Vyas, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide the judgment dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 64/2011 (CIS 46/2014).

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentence.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Facts in Brief:-A wireless information was received regarding two ladies having been stabbed by knives near Village Nimbla one kilometer towards Aahor and that they were lying in a Maruti Swift Dezire vehicle. On receiving this information, Mr. Manohar Lal, the Officer-in-charge, Police Outpost Bhadra Joon reached the spot at 05.15 p.m. on 02.05.2011 and saw a white Maruti Swift Dezire Car Registration No. RJ-19-CB-4257 lying besides the road. Dead body an old lady aged about 60-65 years was lying inside the car, whereas dead body of a lady aged about 30-32 years was lying on the road. Both had been stabbed and killed. Mr. Manohar Lal submitted a report at the Police Station Nosara, on which the FIR No. 38/2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, it came to light that the victims were Smt. Satyendra Kuar, wife of accused Mehar Singh, and Smt. Jagjeet Kaur, mother of Smt. Satyendra Kaur. The relations between Mehar Singh and Smt. Satyendra Kaur were strained. The lady had drawn numerous insurance policies etc. and owned properties. Mehar Singh was the nominee in the insurance policies. He used to quarrel with Satyendra Kaur and had an evil eye on her properties. He was also involved in extramarital affairs with other women. He used to pressurize Smt. Satyendra Kaur to transfer her properties and business to his name. With this objective, Mehar Singh conspired with his brother Lakhjindra Singh and the appellant herein his alleged lover and killed the two ladies while they were proceeding in the Maruti Swift Dezire Car.

5. The prosecution case as against the appellant was primarily based on four circumstances, viz. (1) Extramarital affair between the appellant and Lakhjindra Singh; (2) the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the accused Lakhjindra Singh and the two ladies in the Maruti Swift Dezire car by witness Poorandas (P.W. 16); (3) recovery of a bag at a distance of one km. from the place of incident, wherein identity documents of the appellant were lying; (4) that a mobile phone with sim No. 9530184690 was recovered from the possession of the appellant herein and that regular frequent calls and chats were made from this mobile number to the mobile number of the co-accused Mehar Singh and Lakhjindra Singh. As per the call detail record, location of the above mobile phone was around Mogda, Kankani and Bhadra Joon, which is just nearby the place of incident. The frequent calls and chats established that the appellant was deeply involved in an affair with Lakhjindra Singh.

6. Based on these circumstantial evidence, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above.

7. Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. There is no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The witness of last seen Poorandas (P.W. 16) was present when the dead bodies were recovered and the documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer on 03.05.2011, yet he did not disclose the fact regarding having seen the accused appellant with Lakhjindra Singh on the day of the incident or that she followed the car of the victims on a motorcycle. Mr. Khatri further pointed out that the witness admitted that he did not know the appellant from befo