Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimonies necessitates suspension of sentence as credibility of evidence is crucial in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 13363 of 2024

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Palamau, in connection with Session Trial No. 105C/2015, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No.901 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 , 149, 376(2) (g), 148 & 120 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and in default of fine, he has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 1 year and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC and in default of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 148 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of four months and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the IPC and in case of default of fine, he has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has been convicted without taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5 but only relying upon the testimony of P.W.1 who has taken the name of the present appellant in alleged commission of crime.

3. It has also been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5, wherein, the name of the present appellant has not been disclosed by them, although, these witnesses have been said to be present at the place of occurrence.

4. It has further been contended that one co-convict, namely, Awatar Kharwar has been directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.8624/2024 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1168 of 2024] mainly on the ground that the name of said Awatar Kharwar has not been taken by P.W.6, the informant, who has been examined in the present case as P.W.4.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case for suspension of sentence.

6. While on the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

7. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.1, who being the eye witness that she has taken the name of the present appellant specifically so far as his presence at the place of occurrence and commission of crime.

8. It has been contended, in response to the argument regarding non-disclosure of the name of the appellant by P.W.4 and P.W.5, that it is immaterial, even if, the name of the present appellant has not been disclosed by P.W.4 and P.W.5, however, the name of the appellant has been disclosed by P.W.1, which will be said to be sufficient material for conviction and by taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the judgment of conviction has been passed, which cannot be said to suffer from an error an