Suspension of sentence granted due to lack of specific evidence against the appellant and completion of nine years of imprisonment, highlighting the importance of attributability in criminal convictions.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 9418 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 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in connection with Sessions Trial No.113 of 2016, arising out of Kuchai P.S. Case No.11 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.550/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 /34 of the IPC along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for six months.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where even though, there is no specific overt act said to be committed by the appellant as per the testimony of the witnesses, the appellant has been convicted for life.

3. It has also been contended that the informant or the other witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not disclosed the name of the appellant said to have committed the murder of his father.

4. It has also been contended that even no TIP has been conducted and merely on the ground of identification of the appellant in the Court, the attributability said to be committed has been accepted by the learned trial Court.

5. The ground of completion of period of sentence of nine years has also been taken with the additional ground that the appeal is of the year, 2024 and it is not likely to be taken up in near future.

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

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

8. It has been submitted by referring to the testimony of the witnesses, who all along, has supported the prosecution version and as such, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

9. We have heard the 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 along with other material exhibits as available in the Trial Court Records.

10. This Court, on consideration of the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as also, the informant, has found that no specific overt act has been alleged against the present appellant and no attributability has been casted upon the present appellant.

11. The specific name of one person, namely, Podram has been disclosed by P.W.2, while, the name of the appellant has not been disclosed by him. No evidence of TIP has come.

12. This Court, considering the aforesaid, in addition thereto also considering the fact that the appellant has completed the period of sentence of nine years approximately and the appeal is of the year, 2024 which is not likely to be taken up in near future, therefore, this Court also, considering the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 697 , is of the view that the instant interlocutory application is fit to be allowed.

13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.No.9418 of 2024 stands allowed.

14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in connection with Sessions Trial No.113 of 2016, arising out of Kuchai P.S. Case No.11 of 2016, corre