The discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the lack of prior enmity between the accused and the deceased were crucial in the court's decision to allow the application for suspension of sentences and release the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Abu Road, District Sirohi in C.I.S. Case No. 02/2019 (CIS No. 02/2019):

2. He has preferred the instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. craving suspension of sentences and release on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

3. Learned counsel Shri Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel representing the appellant applicant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution has come out with a case that the appellant herein inflicted a stone blow on the head of the victim Shri Rangaram and thereby killed him on 24.11.2018. He pointed out that the FIR came to be lodged after significant delay i.e. on 25.11.2018 at 11.30 am. nearly more than 12 hours after the incident. He urged that the two star prosecution witnesses Smt. PW-1 Sonki wife of the deceased and PW-8 Shri Tripal Singh @ Deepak son of the deceased gave highly contradictory versions regarding the incident. He further urged that the conduct of these witnesses is absolutely unnatural. They took no step whatsoever to take the victim to the hospital after he allegedly received injuries at the hands of the accused. He drew the Court's attention to the statement of Tripal Singh wherein, he admitted that after the assault allegedly made by the appellant on the head of Shri Rangaram by a stone, his father walked back on his own and went to sleep on a cot. Thereafter, he expired. Shri Bijarnia submitted that had there been an iota of truth in the prosecution story, there was no rhyme or reason behind this sequence of events and in natural course, the family members would have taken the injured to the hospital. He further submitted that Sonki (PW-1) stated that incident took place in front of their house whereas Shri Tripal Singh (PW-8) stated that incident took place behind their house. Thus, there is a serious discrepancy regarding the place of incident in the statement of two so-called eye-witnesses. On these grounds, Shri Bijarnia implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct release of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences. He opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bijarnia and urged that the two eye witnesses, referred to supra, have clearly alleged that the appellant called the deceased out of his house and gave a blow of stone which was lying nearby. The deceased fell down at the spot and expired because of the stone injury. He thus urged that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.

6. First and foremost, it may be noted here that as per the statements of the two eye-witnesses Sonki (PW-1) and Tripal Singh @ Deepak (PW-8), there was no prior enmity between the accused and the deceased. On the fateful day, the accused, who is a cousin of Shri Tripal Singh, came to their house and was raising a ruckus on the issue as to why the goat had been sacrificed in his absence. Saying so, the accused picked up a stone lying nearby and gave a blow thereof on the head of the deceased. Shri Tripal Singh (PW-8) stated that after receiving the injury, his father walked back on his own and went to sleep on the cot. None of the family members made any effort whatsoever to take Shri Rangaram to the hospital for treatment. There is a discrepancy regarding the place of incident when the statements of PW-1 Sonki and PW-8 Tripal Singh are seen.

7. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant applicant has available to