The court emphasized the necessity of credible witnesses and motive in criminal cases, allowing suspension of sentence due to inherent doubts in the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

The facts as noted by this Court are that on 24.02.2022 at about 9 PM, it is reported by the neighbours that Geeta Devi (mother of the deceased child) complained that her son was being hurt by her brother-in-law. It has also been reported that on the next day, Vikas (elder son of Geeta Devi) and Pooja (daughter of Geeta Devi) came and told that their uncle (Chacha) along with their mother had killed their younger brother and the blood stained premises was apparent. The information was given to the police, upon which, police began searching Geeta Devi and her brother-in-law - Sanwarmal (present appellant).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that upon receiving information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, dead body of the child was recovered from the cremation ground during investigation and postmortem was also conducted. He submits that information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant because the cremation was at a demarcated place and thus, it cannot be said to be an information exclusively within the domain of the accused. He further submits that there were several prosecution witnesses but all the eye-witnesses turned hostile except for PW-14, who is an eight years old child and son of Geeta Devi and elder brother of the deceased. He submits that prosecution has neither examined the mother of the deceased child (Geeta Devi) and nor found her to be involved in the crime, which creates grave doubt in the story of the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that Geeta Devi was living with her brother-in-law - Sanwarmal (present appellant) after death of her husband and no rift or any kind of awkward relationship was reported, which could create a support system to the prosecution story in the shape of any kind of mens rea.

2.2. Learned counsel submits that absence of Geeta Devi (mother of the deceased child) from the scenario as an accused or as a prosecution witness or as any kind of role in prosecution, creates a grave doubt in the story of the prosecution. He submits that in ordinary course, the two injuries, which are reflected in the parietal zone also do not support the first story of FIR. He further submits that all the other crucial witnesses have turned hostile and appellant has already undergone custody of about two years. He submits that an eight years old child is the sole connecting witness of the incident in question but his deposition becomes doubtful because his mother is neither supporting him nor opposing the stand taken by him. The statement of the Investigating Officer also creates a doubt in the prosecution story because he, at one stage, considered Geeta Devi as one of the accused but at the subsequent stage, completely dropped her from either of the sides being responsible or in defence of the incident in question.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for suspension of sentence and submits that information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was exclusive and sufficient to drive the story of the prosecution. He further submits that motive is not required in every case. He also submits that there is an eye-witness, which is PW-14 though he is a child witness but he has clearly deposed that his younger brother was killed by the accused-appellant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that story of the prosecution suffers from inherent doubt in light of the non-participation of the mother of the deceased child (Geeta Devi) as prosecution witness or even as defence witness. The villagers have lodged the FIR and an eight years old child is supporting the FIR, whereas no other independent witness has supported the incident during trial. The absence of the mother of the deceased from the scenario as well as complete lack of motive makes sufficient ground for suspension of sentence of the applicant-appellant. The applicant-appellant, who is uncle (chacha) of the deceased child was also living