The court established that insufficient evidence of serious injury can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.

ORDER

1. The appellants-applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 325, 307/34 of the IPC vide judgment dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defence that the applicants herein have been falsely implicated in the case. Inviting the court's attention towards the statements of Medical Officer Dr. Pramod Jeman (P.W.-9) and Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11) coupled with the X-ray report (Exhibit P-14) and final opinion report of the Doctor (Exhibit D-4), learned counsel pointed out that the injured Hari Prakash had suffered one fracture on his hand and other fracture on his leg, which are not on the vital part of the body. Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11) has admitted in his crossexamination that he had only expressed the possibility of fractures of Hari Prakapsh being 'likely' to fatal to his life. The prosecution has failed to prove that any of the injuries caused to the Hari Prakash were on the vital part of the body or were inflicted by any deadly weapon. No definite opinion of the doctor is available on the record. Hence, as per him, manifestly it is a case where the applicants have been falsely implicated owing to prior enmity. He submitted that the applicants were on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail so granted to them by this Court. On these grounds, he implored the Court to allow the application for Suspension of Sentence and direct to release of applicants on bail during pendency of appeal.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the defence counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that injuries were not on the vital part.

4. Any comment on the merits of the case at this stage may prejudice the decision of the appeal. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances as emergent from the record, we are inclined to accept the instant application for Suspension of Sentence.

5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide judgment dated 08.02.2023 in Sessions Case No.09/2023 (52/2013) against the petitioner-applicants 1. Bala Ram S/o Shri Gautam 2. Pushpendra @ Pushkar S/o Shri Bala Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thosuand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 18.05.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

6. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. That if the applicant(s) 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. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), 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-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.