The presumption of innocence is erased once a conviction is upheld; minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate a soundly adjudicated case.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 430 (1) & (2), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaurat Rampur Bhshahr, H.P., vide judgment of conviction, dated 01.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 02.12.2023 in Case No. 29/2019, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338, 304AA of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and Sections 185 & 187 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (for short “MV Act”). It has been averred in the application that the applicant has good prima facie case in his favour and the appeal is likely to be succeeded in all eventualities. It has further been mentioned in the application that the applicant has already undergone 313 days of sentence and since the appeal pertains to the year 2024, the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future, therefore, it has been prayed that the present application may be allowed.

2. In reply filed by the respondent/State, it has been averred that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading relevant and cogent evidence and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court suffers from no infirmity. It is also been averred in the application that the applicant has been convicted after full fledged trial, as such, there is no presumption of innocence in his favour.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the material available on record.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the learned trial Court has based its decision on the basis of surmises and conjectures and has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, as there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be believed. He further contended that the whole case of the prosecution was that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the applicant, however, there was no injury on his person, which shows that the prosecution story is concocted one. Therefore, he prayed that the sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant by the learned Trial Court be suspended in the interest of justice and fair play.

5. Per contra the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the appellant/applicant is not entitled for suspension of sentence, as the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading relevant and cogent evidence and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court suffers from no infirmity. He further contended that the applicant has been convicted after full fledged trial, as such, there is no presumption of innocence in his favour and the instant application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.

6. The perusal of the record reveals that learned ld. Additional Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment of conviction, dated 01.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 02.12.2023, convicted the applicant/appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Sect