The judgment underscores the necessity of credible evidence in securing a conviction and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

JUDGMENT

Rameshwar Vyas, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record.

2. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No.60/2018 (CIS No.60/2018):

3. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the applicant-appellant has preferred the instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

4. As per the reply preferred by the respondent, the appellant has undergone custodial period of nearly 6 years and 4 months till date.

5. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution case, Smt. Pankhi Devi, aged above 60 years, expired in the night of 12.09.2015. The family members cremated the dead body without informing the police. However, Shri Sakha Ram (PW-3), husband of the deceased, lodged a written report (Ex.P/3) to the SHO, Police Station Ahore on 13.09.2015 at 11.00 am. alleging that after the last rites of his wife had been performed, on opening the almirah lying in the room, they realized that someone had stolen away a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a golden bangle from the almirah. Some blood was also seen lying on the bedding.

6. On the basis of this report, an FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Ahore for the offence under Section 380 IPC. On the next day i.e. on 14.09.2015, Sohanlal (PW-4), brother of the first informant, filed another application to the SHO, Police Station Ahore alleging that ?Teeya Baithak? pursuant to death of his sister-in-law, was going on and during that meeting, Champa Lal, who is related to them, came there and confessed that he had slept in the house of the informant on 12.09.2015. He lost his senses on seeing his own aunt, the deceased Pankhi Devi and tried to rape her. The lady resisted on which, Champa Lal allegedly strangulated her. He then stole the valuables from the almirah and went away.

7. On the basis of this report, the SHO added the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 and 302 IPC in the case. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above.

8. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record.

9. Suffice it to say that there are significant loopholes in the prosecution case. The prosecution has tried to portray through the evidence of Jetharam (PW-15) son of the deceased that he and his father had gone for the carpentry work in the village Aalasan. His mother was all alone in the house. Thus, he requested his cousin Champa Lal to sleep in the house for giving company to his mother Pankhi Devi. He called Champa Lal and asked whether he had gone there to sleep who replied that he would be going later. Thereafter, he got a call from his brother Govind that their mother was lying dead in the kitchen. Jethalal and his father immediately went to their village and saw the dead body of Pankhi Devi lying there. Champa Lal was also present there and explained that the lady was collecting some articles from the kitchen and suddenly fell down and that she might have suffered a haemorrhage. On the suggestion of Champa Lal, they cremated the body without informing the police. However, we find that this allegation of Jetharam is dubitable because had the events occurred in this manner then, there was no reason to omit these facts in the FIR. There is no evidence to show that the death of Smt. Pankhi Devi was homicidal because the dead body was cremated by the family members without informing the police or without getting postmortem c