The court established that a conviction must be supported by credible evidence, and the lack thereof can lead to the suspension of a sentence.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeals) No.654/2021 and 538/2021.

2. Learned counsel for accused-appellants have submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021. It is further submitted that there is no iota of evidence available on record to connect the appellants with the commission of crime. It has been argued that though the so called eye witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 have named the appellants but the Investigating Officer PW-31 (Kaptan Singh) in his evidence has specifically admitted that the accused-appellants were not known to the PW-11 and PW-12. The Investigating Officer PW-31 in his statement has also specifically stated that the appellants were not in connection with the deceased or his wife co-accused Heera Devi by any means such as mobile etc. and has also stated that the accused-appellants had no enmity with the deceased.

3. Learned counsel have, therefore, argued that when so called two eye witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 were not knowing the identity of appellants and in the absence of evidence of this fact that at any point of time before the incident the accused appellants have joined co-accused Ratan Lal the conviction of the accused-appellants is based on surmises and conjecture.

4. Learned counsel has also submitted that Mr. Hemant Kumar Meena is in custody since 09.12.2015 and as such he has undergone more than five and half years of sentence, whereas, the accused-appellant-Jagdeesh was on bail during trial. Learned counsel have therefore prayed that the applications for suspension of sentence may be granted.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications.

6. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the material available on record, the evidence of PW-31 Kaptan Singh, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellants.

7. Accordingly, D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.654/2021 and D.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.538/2021 filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 in Case No.51/2018 (13/2016) (NCV No.131/2018) against appellants (1) Hemant Kumar Meena @ Deepak Meena S/o Shri Kaluram Meena and (2) Jagdeesh S/o Sita Ram Meena shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 20.10.2021 and whenever ordered 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 appellants changes 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.

8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-appellants were tried and convicted.

9. 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 appellants do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.