IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the appellant along with the appeal.

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 364, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 3/25 of Arms Act and 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

3. Counsel for the appellant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that the appellant is confined in District Jail, Sawal Madhopur since the date of arrest i.e. 18.11.2019. Counsel further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that PW1-Reena, daughter of the deceased and PW2-Bali Devi, wife of the deceased have leveled the allegation upon co-accused Montu of causing injuries on the person of deceased by using iron rod. Counsel further submits that other eyewitnesses namely PW3-Budhram and PW4-Rasid both have been declared hostile during trial by the Trial Court. Counsel further submits that as per the postmortem report as many as ten injuries were found on the body of the deceased including four fractures; one on the finger, two on the legs and one on the hand, however, PW13-Dr. Veni Madhav in his statement recorded before the Trial Court has only described ten injuries namely abrasions and bruises. The doctor nowhere stated about fractures upon the body of the deceased. Counsel further submits that the doctor in his statement has nowhere stated that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. Counsel further submits that according to FIR and statement of eyewitnesses, the appellant was having firearm, however, the said firearm has not been used by him. Appellant is in custody for more than four years and three months. Counsel further submits that hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet Raut v. State of GNCT Delhi (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.(s). 22968/2020 which is held as under:-

"The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court is pending. An application was moved by the petitioner before the High Court for suspension of sentence which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

We are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone sentence of 7 years and 4 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no likelihood of the appeal being decided soon.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, which was accepted by the trial court shows that the petitioner has committed a grave offence under Section 302. He requested this Court to permit the petitioner to renew his application for suspension of sentence after some time or direct the appeal to be heard.

We are not inclined to give any direction to the High Court to dispose of the appeal out of turn.

Taken into account the fact that the petitioner has undergone sentence of more than 7 years, we deem it fit and proper to grant his prayer for suspension of sentence.

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The special leave petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

5. Counsel for the appellant further relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

"1. Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.308/2022), decided on 25.02.2022.

2. Atul @ Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appe