The court established that reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence can justify the suspension of sentences under Section 389 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT

1. Both these applications for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of applicant-appellants Bhupendra, Kapil, Pradeep Kumar and Kirandeep are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. The instant applications for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC have been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicants Bhupendra, Kapil, Pradeep Kumar and Kirandeep, who have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC vide the judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwada, District Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.9/2019. They are convicted and sentenced as below:-

3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. As per the prosecution case set out in written report (Ex.P/1) lodged by Ms.Charulata (P.W.1) on 04.02.2019 at the Police Station Sabla, District Dungarpur against some unknown persons, upon which, FIR No.41/2019 had been registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. It was stated in the said FIR that on 02.02.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., complainant's sister Smt. Richa @ Rinku W/o Parikshit Sharma went in her Swift Desire Car No. RJ-12 CE 4161 informing her daughter Hemshree @ Kuku (P.W. 15) that she would come to home within one hour but she did not return back. After that, an information was received that Smt.Richa's car met with an accident near Kandola and her dead body was taken to the Govt. Hospital, Sagwada. In the aforesaid report, a suspicion was raised that her sister Smt. Richa @ Rinku has not died due to said accident but was murdered and the story was concocted by giving it a shape of accident.

5. After registration of the FIR No.41/2019, a thorough investigation was undertaken by the police officials and thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against all the four accused appellants for the above offences. After trial, all the four accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above. Hence, these applications for suspension of sentences.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the conviction of the appellants has been recorded purely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It was further argued that the whole case of the prosecution is based on transcription (Ex.P/15), which is not admissible in evidence and the story created by the prosecution regarding the matter of transaction of money between the deceased and appellant-Bhupendra has not been proved on the face of the record. It was further argued that the witnesses Ms.Charulata (P.W. 1), Hemshree @ Kuku (P.W. 15) and Parikshit (P.W. 17) have nowhere stated in their statements that there was any matter of transaction of money between the accused-appellant Bhupendra and the deceased. It was further argued that appellants have been serving the sentences since 05.09.2019 and hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore their sentence may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

7. Per contra, learned GA-cum-AAG opposed the applications for suspension of sentences by arguing that the mobile phones have been recovered at the instances of the appellants and the transcription recorded in their mobile phones clearly indicate that a conspiracy for committing the murder of Smt. Richa @ Rinku was hatched and the motive behind this was not to return money to the deceased, which was borrowed from her. In pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the accused, they committed the murder of deceased Smt. Richa and thereafter, they have tried to give it the shape of accident. It was further argued by the l