Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ
Sahiram @ Phauji, S/o. Deepa Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
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 submi
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to allow the suspension of sentences and release on bail pending the appeal.
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.
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
