The central legal point established is the consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances, including the sufficiency of evidence and the time served, in deciding to suspend the sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on suspension of sentence application and carefully scrutinizing the record of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC vide judgment dated 05.08.2021. It is argued that no direct evidence is available on record against the applicant-appellant, however, though, the trial court has relied upon the so called circumstantial evidence but close scrutiny of the said evidence, clearly reveals that the same is not enough to prove the guilt of the applicant-appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that though, the trial court has relied upon the so called recovery of one kassi , weapon used in committing murder, but the same is not blood stained and is also recovered after so many days of the incident. It is also submitted that so far as the evidence of last scene is concerned, the same is not reliable as the applicant-appellant being husband of the deceased is suppose to live with the deceased in his house only.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has pointed out towards the statements of PW-6 Ganga, who happened to be the mother of the deceased, and argued that PW-6 in her court statements has specifically stated that a case was filed against the applicant-appellant and his family members so that they could not get the custody of minor children of the deceased from them. It is, therefore, argued that from the above, it is clear that the applicant-appellant is falsely been implicated in this case and the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing him vide impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the applicant-appellant was on bail and at present he is in custody. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the trial as well as the appeal filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant, the applicant-appellant has served out around 5 years of sentence. It is also submitted that final hearing of the appeal will take time.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the applicant-appellant for suspending his sentence.

7. It is not in dispute that there is no direct evidence available on record against the applicant-appellant and the trial court has convicted him solely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of the weapon as well as the wire, however, both the articles are not blood stained. The applicant-appellant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and has served out around 5 years of sentence during the pendency of the trial as well as the appeal filed on his behalf. The appeal filed by the applicant-appellant is not likely to be heard finally in near future.

8. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused applicant-appellant.

9. Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 05.08.2021 in Sessions Case No. 65/2012 against applicant-appellant Sampat Lal S/o Hiralal Jat shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 27.07.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in wr