Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.
Mukesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.1051 of 2021 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1702 of 2021
Decided On : 23-11-2021
SUSPENSION - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION - The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence against the appellant and the potential for a lengthy appeal process. The court highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, leading to the decision to grant bail pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 363 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to ten years. He claimed false implication due to a dispute with his wife, and the victim's testimony was questioned due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence, particularly noting that the victim's account was not supported by other witnesses and that the appellant had been on bail during the trial.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted suspension of sentence pending appeal, considering the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of corroborative evidence and the potential for a lengthy appeal justified the suspension of the sentence, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.
Result: The application for suspension of sentence was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail pending the appeal.
ORDER
1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellant has filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge No.5, Kota (Rajasthan) in Session CIS No. 12/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 363 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to maximum term often years.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to dispute between the appellant and his wife. The victim is brother-in-law of the appellant, who has been examined as PW-7. He has stated that the appellant with intention of causing death pushed him in the well, from where he was rescued by other persons but this prosecution story is a result of an after thought. There is no injury on the body of injured as per statement of PW-12-Parmanand. The Investigating Officer-PW-11-Vijendra Singh has stated in his cross-examination that the fact of pushing Lekhraj in the well was not narrated to him by any witness but it was narrated by victim himself only. He has further admitted that in the video recording of the place of occurrence, Mukesh is not seen. During trial, the appellant was on bail. Now, he is in custody from the date of passing of judgment i.e. 23.09.2021. Decision of the appeal may consume considerable time.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record carefully.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.
8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-appellant Mukesh S/o Modulal shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance in this Court on 3rd January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the lack of sufficient evidence can warrant the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the accused shows circumstances such as prior bail status, marriage to the prosecutrix, and delays in FIR filing, indicating a potential for prolonged appeal.
[The court established that the presence of material contradictions in prosecution evidence and the nature of injuries can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.]
Evidence of a prolonged relationship can influence the decision for suspending a sentence under IPC provisions, particularly where the victim's testimony supports the defense.
The court established that the suspension of sentence can be granted based on the merits of the case and the reliability of evidence, particularly in cases involving serious allegations under the POC....
The court allowed the suspension of sentence for accused-applicants pending appeal, emphasizing their prior bail status and involvement of a co-accused.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The court established that delays in reporting and inconsistencies in testimony can impact the credibility of the prosecution's case, influencing decisions on bail and sentence suspension.
The court allows suspension of sentence for a juvenile convicted under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the lengthy appeal process.
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
