ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.

2. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 10/2017 (CIS No. 52/2017) :

3. The case involves triple murders of one Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and his children Deepak and Jyoti. The dead bodies of the three victims were found locked inside the House No. 2/133, Housing Board, Hanumangarh Junction where, Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav resided with his wife Smt. Reema (the co-convict) and his two deceased children. The prosecution has come out with a case that Smt. Reema was involved in an extramarital affair with the appellant herein and that both conspired to kill Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and the two children and then absconded. When the foul smell started emanating from the house, the matter was reported to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction who broke open the lock of the house and found the three dead bodies lying inside. An FIR No. 372/2016 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, the appellant Sunil Yadav and the co-accused Smt. Reema were charge-sheeted and finally, both were convicted and sentenced as above. The appellant, who is in custody since 30.07.2016, has approached this Court by way of this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentences awarded to him by the trial court.

4. Reply to the application for suspension of sentences has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Harvinder, Advocate representing the applicant appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case as against the appellant by convincing evidence. The prosecution case was based on ocular/direct testimony and circumstantial evidence. However, the star prosecution witness Neelam Yadav (PW-7), wife of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile and thus, there is no direct evidence against the appellant who was convicted on the basis of three circumstances:

(i) Extramarital affair with the co-accused Smt. Reema;

(ii) Recovery of blood stained vest having same blood group as that of the deceased child Jyoti (AB); and

(iii) Circumstance of abscondence of the accused appellant from the place of incident after committing the murders.

6. Shri Kharlia pointed out that the appellant was arrested on the very day of registration of the FIR as is evident from the testimony of Constable Pradeep Singh (PW-9) and thus, the conclusion of the learned trial court that the appellant absconded from the place of incident, is totally unsubstantiated. He further submitted that the allegation regarding the appellant having been involved in an extramarital affair with the co-accused Smt. Reema is totally conjectural because the witness Mahesh (PW-1), who levelled this allegation, stated that one Ajay had told him regarding the extramarital affair of these two accused. Ajay, upon being examined as PW-4, gave evidence of extra-judicial confession made by both the accused at the police station and also stated that Neelam Yadav (PW-7) and Ashrafi (PW-5) told him regarding the two accused being involved in an extramarital affair. However, neither Neelam Yadav (PW-7) nor Ashrafi (PW-5) supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Regarding the recovery of blood stained vest, the contention of Shri Kharlia was that the I.O. claimed to have recovered the vest from the body of the accused on 30.07.2016 at 0