The court may suspend sentences and grant bail during the pendency of an appeal if strong grounds are presented, such as lack of reliable evidence and prolonged custody.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred on behalf of the appellant applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.74/2017:

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

3. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel Shri acharya representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The case set up by the prosecution regarding the alleged murder of Bhagwan Ram is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court placed reliance on the Rojnamcha entry (Ex.P/22) wherein, it is recorded that the appellant himself appeared at the Police Station Soorsagar and confessed to have murdered his cousin brother Bhagwan Ram by strangulating him. Shri acharya drew the Court's attention to the statement of the SHO Nitin Dave (PW-25), who was not made to prove the said Rojnamcha Entry in his examination-in-chief. The SHO admitted in his cross-examination that the original Rojnamcha entry was not available on the record. He did not include the same with the file and that copy (Ex.P/22) did not bear his signatures. The witness rather admitted that he could not say as to when document (Ex.P/22) was proved. Shri acharya also drew the Court's attention to the other investigating officer Krishan Chandra (PW-24) who admitted in his statement that the Rojnamcha entry (Ex.P/22) was taken on record on 18.02.2017 whereas the incident took place on 18.12.2016. Shri acharya submitted that the evidence of the witnesses of last seen is not reliable. The recoveries of rope and chain effected from the appellant is of no avail because these articles were not sent for serological examination. He thus urges that the appellant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. The appellant is in custody from 19.12.2016. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these submissions, Shri acharya sought acceptance of the application for suspension of sentences craving bail for the appellant during pendency of the appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the Rojnamcha Entry (Ex.P/22) on which, the trial court placed heavy reliance for convicting the appellant was not proved as per law. The document which is available on record is simply a hand-written one with no endorsement of it being a certified copy. The SHO Nitin Dave (PW-25) admitted in his cross-examination that he did not sign the document. The document does bear the signatures of the accused as well. Even if the original had been proved, the defence would have been well within its right to claim that the document (Ex.P/22) is nothing but a confession of the accused recorded by the police officials. There are significant contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of last seen PW-1 Hanuman, PW-2 Kailash, etc. Few other witnesses of last seen namely Babulal (PW-7), Pushpa (PW-8), Manju (PW-9), ashok (PW-10) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The articles (rope and chain) recovered at the instance of the appellant were not sent for forensic/serological examination.

6. Having considered the entirety of the circumstances as available on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as to assail th