The court may consider the strength of the evidence, duration of custody, and likelihood of appeal duration in deciding on suspension of sentences and bail.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant-applicant who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, Pali in Sessions Case No.39/2018:

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

3. By the very same judgment, the trial court convicted the co-accused Hanumanram, Ramnarayan, Smt. Sundari, Mamta and Sushila and sentenced them to life imprisonment as well.

4. The prosecution has come out with a case that the accused Sundari, Mamta and Sushila, wife and daughters respectively of Shri Babulal conspired with the remaining accused persons including the appellant herein to get Shri Babulal murdered. Acting in furtherance of the said conspiracy, certain unknown assailants entered into the house of Shri Babulal on the night of 18.06.2018. They were armed with sharp weapons. They assaulted and killed Babulal in the courtyard of his house. The FIR of this incident was lodged by Shri Ramlal, grandson of Shri Babulal. The appellant and the co-accused persons were arrested and based on certain incriminating recoveries and inference of conspiracy, charge-sheet came to be filed in the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/114, 460/114, 120B and 182 IPC.

5. Shri Deepak Menaria, Advocate assisted by Shri V.K. Gaur and Shri Mohammed Rasheed representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that there is no evidence worth the name on record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. Stronger evidence was available against Ramnarayan, Hanumanram, Sundari, Sushila, Mamta who have since been enlarged on bail. He criticized the finding recorded by the trial court at para No.82 of the impugned judgment whereby, the trial court drew adverse inference against the accused persons on the basis of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Shri Menaria also drew the Court's attention to the finding recorded by the trial court at Para No.79 of the impugned judgment wherein, the inference of culpability was drawn by the trial court on the basis of the call detail record. He submitted that the trial court observed at the said paragraph of the judgment that the accused Mamta was holding the mobile phone No.7414845669 whereas the accused Mahipal was holding the mobile phone No.8696234097 and that both talked to each other on numerous occasions on 18.06.2018 and location was also nearby the place of incident. Shri Menaria submitted that call detail record was never proved by the prosecution and as such this finding of the trial court is absolutely perfunctory and laconic. He submitted that the axe recovered at the instance of the accused appellant did not test positive for any blood group. Sharp weapons were also recovered on the basis of the informations provided by the accused Hanumanram and Ramnarayan who have since been enlarged on bail. He thus urged that the appellant too deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too was candid in conceding that the call detail record was not exhibited at the trial and thus, the finding recorded by the trial court drawing inferences against the accused on the basis thereof is perfunctory and laconic. A perusal of the FSL report (Ex.P/70) would indicate that the axe recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant Mahipal was not conclusive regarding blood group.

7. In this background and having regard to the overall facts