Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Accused-applicants have preferred this application for suspension of sentence.
2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the case against the applicants is that they had made an extra-judicial confession before some Head Constable after sixteen months of the alleged incident. The Head Constable was not produced before the Court. Father of the deceased, who had seen three persons entering into the shop had not identified the accused-applicants in Test Identification Parade. It is also contended that the accused were on bail during trial. It is also contended that the recovery of articles has been made after sixteen months of the incident, which creates doubt on the prosecution case. It is further contended that the recovery of mobile has been disbelieved by the Trial Court. It is further contended that the details of the jewellery articles were not mentioned in the FIR and there was no identification done before the Magistrate with regard to the recovered jewellery.
4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the suspension of sentence application. It is cont
Suspension of sentence is warranted when doubts exist regarding identification and evidence, particularly with significant delay in recovery.
The court established that prolonged custody and delay in appeal hearings can warrant the suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
In murder convictions, post-conviction suspension of sentence is rare; courts assess evidence's prima facie durability and must have compelling justifications.
The court established that the suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. requires consideration of the strength of the evidence and the duration of custody.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
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
