In murder convictions, post-conviction suspension of sentence is rare; courts assess evidence's prima facie durability and must have compelling justifications.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension sentence in connection with judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.02.2024 and 07.02.2024 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Session Trial Case No. 14 of 2022, arising out of Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 15 of 2021, Whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 ,201,364/34 of the Indian Penal Coade and under Section 27 of ARMS ACT and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 302 /34 of I.P.C and in default of fine further S.I. for one year, further directed to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 364 /34 of I.P.C. and in default of fine further S.I. for 6 months. The appellant has been further directed to undergo R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of fine further S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 /34 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of fine further S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 27 of ARMS ACT .

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence may be suspended, since, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence rather only on the basis of the so-called confessional statement of the applicant/appellant the recovery of 315 bore katta has been shown to be made from the place of occurrence and based upon that the conviction has been made.

3. It has been contended that the said recovery was not on the basis of the first confessional statement of the appellant rather when on the basis of the first confessional statement the said pistol had not recovered then again, the second confessional statement was recorded and based upon that the said katta .315 bore has been shown to be recovered.

4. It has been contended that before the recovery of the .315 bore country made pistol (katta) which was shown to be recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the present applicant/appellant, the dead body of deceased has already been recovered on the basis of the confession made by co-convicted namely Kulesh Rajjak. The contention, therefore, has been raised that since the dead body of deceased has already been recovered and as such the recovery of pistol cannot said to be based upon the confessional statement of the appellant. The ground, therefore, has been agitated that the said confessional statement, cannot be said to be leading of the recovery of alleged pistol.

5. It has further been contended that the evidence of the prosecution both oral or documentary are not sufficient enough to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts since chain of evidence is not well-established reason being that the Prosecution has tried to prove the chain of circumstances on the basis of call detailed report, which is also not absolutely corroborative evidence as per the law.

6. Learned counsel has submitted that the other co-convicts, namely, Deepika Devi @ Deepika Mishra, So