Back
MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Birbal @ Balla – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellants have filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Act) Cases, Bharatpur in Session Case No. 106/2016, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 307/149, 332 and 333 of IPC and sentenced to maximum term of four years.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent eye witness of the incident. The appellants have been sentenced to maximum term of four years of imprisonment for offences under Sections 307/149 and 333 of IPC. During trial, the appellants were on bail. Injuries of injured PW-2-Surendra Singh @ Lala are simple in nature while one injury of injured Ramcharan Sharma-PW-16 has been levelled as dangerous to life but PW-8-Dr. M.L. Kanwat has stated in his cross-examination that he did not treat the injured-Ramcharan. Operation was also not done by him. He has also admitted that opinion of operating Doctor was
[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.]
The court established that insufficient evidence of serious injury can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The court established that non-vital injuries and prior bail status can justify the suspension of a sentence during an appeal.
The court allowed the suspension of sentence for accused-applicants pending appeal, emphasizing their prior bail status and involvement of a co-accused.
The presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction when corroborated by other credible testimonies.
The court granted suspension of sentence based on the duration of custody and issues with eyewitness credibility, emphasizing the need for strong evidence in ongoing appeals.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the lack of sufficient evidence can warrant the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The court can suspend a sentence during the appeal process if justified by circumstances such as the duration of custody and similar cases.
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
