$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1200/2025 PURAN CHAND RATHORE @ RAJAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohan J. Alva, DHCLSC with Mr. Anant Sanghi, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr.

Manvendra, Yadav, Adv.

Insp. (Retd.) Lekh Raj Singh, SI Pramendra, P.S. Karawal Nagar CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 09.12.2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 1801/2025

1. The present application has been filed by the appellant-applicant under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) seeking suspension of the following sentence awarded to him by the learned ASJ-02 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 25.04.2025 and order on sentence dated 15.05.2025, passed in SC No. 44774/2015.

Sr. No. Offence Sentence Fine

1. 302 IPC Life Rs. 20,000/-

Imprisonment.

2. 120B IPC Life Rs. 5,000/-

Imprisonment

3. 452 IPC Imprisonment of Rs. 5,000/-

7 years

4. 27 (3) Arms Life Rs. 5,000/-

Act Imprisonment

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that prosecution has falsely implicated the appellant and the Trial Court too has convicted him without there being any credible evidence against him. He submitted that the appellant has been prosecuted solely on the basis of conjecture and surmises, that too, in backdrop of the apprehension or doubt expressed by the father of the deceased, Shiv Charan who too had expressed such suspicion later on and not immediately at the time of the murder.

3. While highlighting that the sole eye witness was the PW-1 Axx, second son out of the three sons of the deceased and co-accused Sonia, learned counsel further submitted that he too sprung into action on 14.09.2013, whereas the incident took place between intervening night of

07.09.2013 and 08.09.2013 at around 01:00-01:30 am.

4. Inviting the Court’s attention towards the stage when Statement of PW-1 was recorded, learned counsel submitted that the appellant was arrested on 12.09.2013, whereafter the statement of Axx was shown to have been recorded in great detail by the Investigating Officer on 14.09.2013. Thereafter, his statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) came to be recorded before the Magistrate on 17.09.2013.

5. Reading both the statements, learned counsel argued that while a nine-years old boy had told the incident in such minute details to the Investigating Officer, he hardly made six line statement before the Magistrate and ignored/omitted to tell all other facts, which he had narrated to the Investigating Officer on 14.09.2013.

6. He submitted that PW-1 who is nine-years old boy is much intelligent than a normal boy of his age and when he comes to the Court he narrates the entire story, as he had narrated before the Investigating Officer on 14.09.2013. It was so said in a bid to satisfy the court that PW-1, the boy is a tutored witness and has been projected as an eye-witness by the prosecution, which he was not. Pointing out certain the discrepancies in the court statement of PW-1, learned counsel argued that the boy did not see the commission of murder much less, the accused murdering the appellant.

7. Learned counsel argued that the Investigating Officer has simply produced the CDR in the court as Ex.PW30/A but no deposition in this regard was made. He submitted that though a mobile with IMEI 356047043151753 and 356048043151751 was shown to have been recovered from the appellant containing mobile no. 9990564617, however aforesaid SIM was in the name of one Amar Nath but no investigation in this regard was made.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that Investigating Officer has not brought on record the documents or evidence in order to prove that the SIM which was issued in the name of Amar Nath was being used by the appellant.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that simply on the basis of perceived illic