A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 437 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the BNSS , 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 3^rd June, 2024 and order of sentence dated 4th June, 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 61 of 2020 arising out of Bodam P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 927 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence U/S 302 IPC in default six months Additional RI and has been further sentenced RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 201 of IPC and in default Six months Additional Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where the conviction cannot be said to be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, reason being, that it is not a case of eyewitness and further the theory of circumstantial evidence is not being established herein.

3. It has further been contended that the son, who has been examined as P.W.4 namely Ravi Singh has admitted in his deposition that the appellant used to come to his house.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the conviction is not based on the basis of the testimony of eye witnesses and even then, the trial Court has convicted the appellant based upon the testimony of PW-4 who has not witnessed the alleged commission of crime.

5. The ground has been agitated that the PW 4 has only seen that his mother had gone with the present appellant and except the same nothing has been seen by this witness but even though the same has been made the basis of the conviction of the present appellant by the learned trial court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

7. While, on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses available in the Lower Court Records and the other relevant documents.

9. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, has gone through the testimony of the PW-4, basis upon which the learned trial Court has passed the order of conviction.

10. Admittedly, PW-4 who is son of the deceased is not the eye-witness of the alleged commission of crime; however, he has seen that the appellant was taking out his mother from his house, thus it is evident that the testimony of PW-4 discloses only the last seen of his mother with the present appellant.

11. Further, from the record it appears that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than five years.

12. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

13. Accordingly, I.A. No. 437 of 2025 stands allowed.

14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appea