The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness testimony for a conviction, ruling that inconsistencies in evidence justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 1502 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. Case No. 82 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he would further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the judgment and conviction is based upon the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, who has been considered as eye-witnesses, but the testimony of P.W.4 particularly para 6 taking into consideration the evidence, the P.W.4 cannot be said to be an eye-witness and his testimony cannot said to be acceptable. Since, he had deposed in the said paragraph that at the time of the occurrence, he was near the house of the deceased and the deceased was in senseless condition, therefore, the argument has been advanced that the conviction, based upon the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 together, cannot be said to be proper. It has also been submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody and completed the sentence about 9 years and 3 months.

3. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

4. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended by referring the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, which is the basis of the conviction and as such it cannot said that the judgment of conviction is based upon the wrong premise, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and other material exhibits appended therewith.

6. We have considered the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, particularly P.W.4, since, the conviction is based upon the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4, who have been considered as eye-witnesses by the learned trial court.

7. It is evident from the testimony of P.W.4, while in examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution version, but in paragraph 6, the complete contradictory statement has been deposed.

8. This Court, after appreciating the testimony of P.W.4, particularly para 6, is of the view that the trial court has not fully appreciated the testimony of P.W.4 in entirety. Further the appellant has already completed the sentence of 9 years 3 months approximately and as such, the present interlocutory application is fit to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed.

10. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. Case No. 82 of2016.

11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.