The legal principle established is that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be supported by strong and conclusive proof, and the absence of such evidence can lead to the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence No.133/2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is argued that PW-8 Sunita has deposed before the trial court that her husband was last seen with the appellant-applicant and one Dharmendra. It is also submitted that Dharmendra has not even been charge- sheeted by the police. It is further submitted that though the police have recovered a rifle at the instance of the appellant- applicant, but the prosecution has failed to prove that the said rifle was used by the appellant-applicant in commission of crime. It is also submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in observing that since the dead body of the deceased was recovered near the house of the appellant-applicant and it is a strong circumstantial evidence against him, but at the same time, the trial court has failed to consider that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from an open place, which cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of the appellant-applicant. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has, therefore, submitted that the conviction of appellant-applicant has illegally been recorded by the trial court and the same is based on a very weak type of circumstantial evidence. It is also submitted that during trial, the appellant-applicant was on bail, therefore, the sentence awarded to him by the trial court may kindly be suspended.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for Suspension of Sentence preferred on behalf of the appellant.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after scrutinizing the record of the trial court, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Accordingly, the application for Suspension of Sentence No.133/2021 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Effected Area Act Cases, Karauli (Sessions Judge, Karauli) vide judgment dated 19.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 in Sessions Case No.71/2014 and 43/2017 against appellant- Banti @ Gajendra S/o Narayan @ Bukla 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 22.10.2021 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 writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.