VIJAY BISHNOI, ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Kunjya @ Kunj Bihari – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The matter comes up for consideration of the application for suspension of sentence No. 651/2021 preferred on behalf of appellant-applicants, who have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court vide impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants vide impugned judgment though the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them, for which, they were put to trial. Learned counsel while inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses has argued that all the eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. It is further submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the appellant-applicants are found guilty for commission of the offences, however, a close look of the material as well as the evidence available on record clearly proves that the circumstantial evidence, on which, the trial court has relied upon are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant-appellants. It is further submitted that during the course of trial,
The court established that a conviction must be supported by credible evidence, and the absence of such evidence can lead to suspension of sentence.
The court established that a lack of direct evidence and prolonged custody can justify the suspension of a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
The court established that sentences can be suspended based on the duration already served and the conditions of appearance during the appeal process.
The court established that a conviction must be supported by credible evidence, and the lack thereof can lead to the suspension of a sentence.
The court established that a lack of direct evidence from eyewitnesses can be a substantial ground for suspending a sentence pending appeal.
The court has the discretion to suspend substantive sentences based on the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after scrutinizing the record of the trial court.
Circumstantial evidence alone may not suffice for conviction; direct evidence is crucial, and sentences can be suspended based on custody duration and appeal timelines.
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to support a conviction; absence of direct evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
The legal principle established is that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be supported by strong and conclusive proof, and the absence of such evidence can lead to the suspens....
The court may suspend a sentence pending appeal if circumstances warrant, particularly considering the delay in hearing the appeal and the accused's custody status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.