JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- applicant Mala Ram S/o Sh. Puna Ram, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.137/2015.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the applicant-appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter, there is no concrete evidence to bring home the guilt of the applicant-accused as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. He further submits that there was no motive for the applicant-accused Mala Ram to commit the murder of the deceased Om Prakash @ Bhutta. No sufficient material has been brought on record to prove the fact that the applicant-appellant hatched a conspiracy with the other accused-persons to kill the deceased. On the contrary, it would be emanating from the record that the old aged mother and other family members were with the applicant-accused in the vehicle which goes to show that there was no criminal intent of the applicant-appellant to kill the deceased. He further submits that the sentences of the other co-accused namely Ratana Ram, Puna Ram, Ghewar Ram and Sunil have been suspended by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 10.02.2022 & 21.03.2022 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Applications (Appeal) Nos.709/2021 and 179/2022 and the case of the applicant-appellant is in no manner distinguishable to them. The medical evidence totally negates the prosecution theory that the deceased was run over by the vehicle, which was allegedly being driven by the applicant-appellant. He further submits that applicant-appellant is behind Bars for more than last eight years and the hearing of the appeal would further take a long time, therefore, the applicant-appellant may be released on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. They contended that the applicant-appellant being the principal accused thus, he is not entitled to be released on bail during the course of appeal in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and availability of the evidence against him.

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

6. On a perusal of the evidence of the Medical Jurist, it becomes clear that the witness admitted that there were no crush injuries on the body of the deceased and as a consequence, there were no evidence to show that the deceased had been run over by a vehicle. Thus, there is merit in the contention of Shri Jain regarding inherent contradiction inter-se between the medical evidence and ocular testimony. Coupled with this, the fact that sentences of other co-accused namely Ratana Ram, Puna Ram, Ghewar Ram and Sunil have already been suspended by the Coordinate Benches of this court and as the applicant-appellant is behind the Bar since eight and half years thus, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-applicant by suspending the sentences awarded to him by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned A