A conviction must be based on credible and sufficient evidence; mere testimony without corroboration, especially after a significant delay, may not suffice to uphold a conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence No.884/2021.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment. It is argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to suggest that the appellant had committed the crime. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the incident took place in the year 1999 and in the complaint, none of the persons has been named and the same was filed against unknown persons.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further submitted that the accused-appellant was arrested in the year 2017 only and thereafter, the investigation was conducted. It is also submitted that no weapon, alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, has been recovered and the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant solely on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Shyamu Nath and PW-2 Daulatbai, who happened to be the son and wife of the deceased respectively, however, from their statements also, the guilt of the accused-appellant cannot be proved.

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

5. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that only PW-2 Daulatabai, in her statements, has stated that it is the appellant, who took away her husband 17 years ago and simultaneously, she has also admitted that after those 17 years, she has never seen the appellant at any point of time except today, when she is giving her evidence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence No.884/2021 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jhalawar vide judgment dated 11.10.2019 in Sessions Case No.79/2017 against appellant Raj Pal Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh 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 court for his appearance in this court on 11.11.2021 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.

7. 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.