JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 8255/2020 (suspension of sentence)

1. By way of the present application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the appellant seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him during the pendency of the present appeal.

2. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 04.03.2020 and the order on sentence dated 13.03.2020, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 446/2019 and 449/2019. These cases stem from FIR Nos. 89/2018 and 90/2018, registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, which were adjudicated by the learned District and Sessions Judge (West) at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. The appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

i. Section 120B of IPC: Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00.000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year.

ii. Section 193 of IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months.

iii. Section 201 of IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

iv. Section 203 of IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10.000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

v. Section 211 of IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months.

vi. Section 323 of IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

vii. Section 341 of IPC: One-month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/, and in case of non-payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.

viii. Section 304 Part (ii) of IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid to the heirs of the deceased/victim.

ix. Section 3 read with 25 of Arms Act: Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in case of non- payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, while praying for suspension of sentence of the appellant, argues that the appellant has been languishing in jail since 13.04.2018, except for a brief period when he was granted the benefit of interim suspension of sentence by this Court, on account of marriage of his daughter, and the appellant, had admittedly, not misused the liberty granted to him. It is further argued that the appellant has undergone actual sentence of almost 06 years, out of a total period of 10 years awarded to him. It is further stated that all other co-accused persons who had undergone more than half of the imprisonment have already been granted the benefit of suspension of sentence. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution’s case against the appellant is solely based upon circumstantial evidence. The only circumstantial evidence which the prosecution alleges against the appellant is that a phone call was made by the appellant to the Superintendent of Police, who was not made an accused in this case, and the call detail records, location of mobile phones, etc. reveal the falsity of the case of prosecution. It is also submitted that testimonies of PW-42, 43 and 48 were uncorroborated and there were multiple material improvements in the same, which were ignored by the learned Trial Court. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any link between the alleged assault and the subsequent death of the victim, and thus, the appellant should not be held liable for the death of the deceased due to insufficient evidence and the case being not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is prayed that the present application seeking