The court established that a lack of direct evidence from eyewitnesses can be a substantial ground for suspending a sentence pending appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications for suspension of sentence.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants has submitted that the appellants-applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing them vide impugned judgment. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution, the appellants hatched a conspiracy with the main accused Ram Babu Sharma to commit the murder of deceased Madan Gopal Mogra. Learned counsel while inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of eye witnesses Govind Narayan Sharma (PW-2), Ram Avtar Sharma (PW-19), Shrawan (PW-20) and Narayan (PW-21) has argued that the eye witnesses of the incident have not named the appellants. It is also submitted that the trial court, only on the basis of so called call details, has come to the conclusion that the appellants-applicants are the members of the group, which hatched conspiracy of committing murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellants-applicants were on bail during trial and there is every possibility that the appeal preferred by them will not be heard in near future. It is also submitted that the sentence awarded to co-accused Mahaveer Sharma has already been suspended by this Court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

4. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case; substantial grounds taken in the appeal; after scrutinizing the record of the trial court; taking into consideration the evidence of Govind Narayan Sharma (PW-2), Ram Avtar Sharma (PW-19), Shrawan (PW-20) and Narayan (PW-21), who have not named the appellants-applicants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants-applicants.

5. Accordingly, both the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed and it is directed that the sentence awarded to appellants-applicants ? Mahesh Kumar Meena son of Dayaram Meena and Ram Kishor @ R.K. son of Late Ramkaran Meena by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) vide judgment dated 07.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.21/2017 shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal provided each of them executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before this Court on 15.11.2021 and whenever called upon to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

(1) That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

(2) That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their 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.

6. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants were 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-applicants do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.