IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Sahiram @ Phauji, S/o. Deepa Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1047 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 435 read with 149 - Application for suspension of sentence - Conviction based on insufficient evidence as several witnesses turned hostile - Court found no reason to suspend the sentence. (Paras 1, 21)
(B) Evidence - Witness testimony - The court emphasized that the testimony of three witnesses supported the prosecution's case despite others turning hostile. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted for murder and other offences, with arguments presented regarding the lack of incriminating evidence and hostile witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction and dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the evidence provided by other witnesses supporting the prosecution's case.
Result: Application for suspension of sentence dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of the applicant, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149 and 435 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide order dated 11.07.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No.06/2012 (CIS No.594/2014).
2. Arguing the application for suspension of sentence, Mr. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the applicant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court and without there being any incriminating evidence against him, the trial Court has found him guilty of committing murder of the deceased – Prabudh @ Sonu Sharma. He argued that the order impugned is based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Inviting Court’s attention towards the contents of FIR, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the first informant – Sher Singh himself has turned hostile when he appeared in the witness box.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the so called eye-witnesses namely Kalu Singh (PW-2), Sher Singh (PW-3), Poonam Singh (PW-4) and Virendra Kumar (PW-5) have also turned hostile and the applicant has been convicted only on the basis of testimony of three eye-witnesses Gordhan Singh (PW-6), Murlidhar (PW-16) and Surendra Singh (PW-17). He argued that when more than half of the witnesses turned hostile it was not proper to conclude that the applicant is guilty of murder.
5. Learned Senior Counsel invited Court’s attention towards the statement of Dr. MK Rohilla (PW-11), who conducted the post- mortem and submitted that he has deposed that the deceased – Prabudh Sharma had suffered 23 injuries, out of which 22 were of simple nature.
6. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the nature and the number of injuries (23) which the deceased -Prabudh Sharma had suffered cannot be caused as alleged – if he was hit by the jeep.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there was no animosity between the applicant and the deceased- Prabudh Sharma and in absence of any motive, the applicant could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. It was further argued that there was no external injury caused on the liver of the deceased.
9. Mr. Choudhary further argued that other co-accused persons namely Govind Ram, Hari Ram @ Rama, Vijay Pal, Dharma Ram have already been released on bail by this Court on 28.05.2024, as their application for suspension of sentence (D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.549/2024) has been allowed.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence by contending that the last argument advanced by Mr. Choudhary about suspension of sentence of co-accused persons does not provide any help to the applicant. He pointed out that the present applicant had also filed the application for suspension of sentence alongwith those co-accused persons, however, his application was withdrawn, after realizing that his case was different from that of other co-accused persons.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that true it is, that Sher Singh (PW-3) has turned hostile but so far as factum of hitting the deceased with jeep is concerned, the same has been admitted by him. He argued that Sher Singh (PW-3) has turned hostile only to the extent of identification of the accused persons including the applicant and argued that to the extent of incident, his testimony deserves to be read and believed.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the fact that Sher Singh (PW-3) has turned hostile hardly helps the applicant’s cause inasmuch as other witnesses Goverdhan Singh (PW-6), Murlidhar (PW-16) and Surendra Singh (PW-17) have in unison suppor
The presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction when corroborated by other credible testimonies.
Suspension of sentence is only granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the conviction may not be sustainable, which was not established in this case.
The presumption of innocence is erased once a conviction is upheld; minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate a soundly adjudicated case.
Identification of accused by eye witnesses and nature of injuries considered for suspension of sentence application.
The court established that the suspension of a sentence can be granted based on the merits of the appeal and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the nature of the evidence presented.
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimony and medical evidence can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.