Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Devi Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the third application for suspension of sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the deceased and the appellant were neighbours and while they were working in the agriculture field, a quarrel took place between them and in that quarrel, the injured received some injuries. Learned counsel while inviting our attention towards the statement of Dr. Ram Hari Meena (PW-7) has submitted that in his statement, doctor Ram Hari Meena has suggested that all injuries on the body of the deceased are blunt and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result rupture of spleen and there is all possibility that the said injury was caused due to falling down on the land and not by any weapon. Learned counsel has further submitted that no deadly weapon was used in the commission of crime and only a stick was recovered from the agricultural field, which was used in the commission of crime. It is further submitted that till date
The court established that the suspension of a sentence can be granted based on the merits of the appeal and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the nature of the evidence presented.
Suspension of sentence is only granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the conviction may not be sustainable, which was not established in this case.
The court granted suspension of sentence based on the duration of custody and issues with eyewitness credibility, emphasizing the need for strong evidence in ongoing appeals.
The presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction when corroborated by other credible testimonies.
Suspension of sentence granted based on long-term incarceration and lack of immediate appeal prospects in a serious case of culpable homicide.
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimony and medical evidence can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to allow the suspension of sentences and release on bail pending the appeal.
The court ruled that the evidence did not support a conviction for murder as the assault was not fatal, justifying the suspension of the sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
