The main legal point established in the judgment is that even with investigational lapses, if the prosecution evidence inspires confidence and the circumstances lead to a plausible conclusion, a conviction can be recorded. The mode and manner of the offence can also be considered in the decision on suspension of sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of filing the present application, the applicantappellant/Yogesh @ Yogi has prayed for suspension of remaining sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him in FIR No.098 dated 01.12.2017 under Sections 302, 365, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hisar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2017, a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Sadar, Hisar that dead body of a boy was lying on the road at South bypass, Hisar. On this information, police party reached at the spot. The deceased was identified as Sumit son of Vijender by his relatives. There were several marks of injuries including the tyre marks of a vehicle on the person of the deceased-Sumit. During investigation, the present applicant-appellant along with other co-accused were arrested. The present applicant-appellant (Yoesh @ Yogi) and co-accused were held guilty; inter alia convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201/365 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that a blind FIR was registered, wherein neither the applicant-appellant was named nor any overt act was attributed to him. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available on the record and the prosecution has projected the occurrence based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that though the learned trial Court has placed reliance on Facebook Chat (Ex.46) but it would not connect the present applicant-appellant with the commission of offence in any manner. Further elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court erroneously placed reliance upon evidence in the form of `CD' (Ex.P15) showing CCTV footage of the parking area of Hotel Paradise, which is not admissible in evidence as the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 was not annexed. He has further tried to convince the Court that the said CCTV footage, which is the basis of the entire case of prosecution, has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and, thus, the whole prosecution case has fallen like a pack of cards. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K.Basheer and others,2015 1 SCC(Civ) 27.

4. With regard to the recovery of incriminating material effected from the applicant-appellant, pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.P32) is concerned, it is contended that it was the mobile of the applicantappellant only and it cannot be said to be incriminating evidence against him.

5. He further submitted that at the most, even if the entire set of allegations of the prosecution is considered to be a gospel truth, only offence under Section 365 IPC is made out, as there is no evidence of participation of the present applicant-appellant in causing the murder of the deceased. According to him, the applicant-appellant was on bail even during the trial and it will be a travesty of justice if concession of suspension of sentence is not accorded by this Court.

6. Opposing the contentions tooth and nail, the learned counsel for the State urged that the allegations against the present applicantappellant and co-accused are very serious. From the material on record, it is crystal clear that the present applicant-appellant along with the co-accused, firstly abducted the deceased and thereafter caused injuries upon his person and ran over the car resulting into his death. The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any defence as to how he was caught in CCTV footage of parking area of Paradise Hotel and what was the motive for his false implication.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased (Sumit son of Vijender) was in love with Jyoti sister o