$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 937/2025 DHEERAN @ DHEERAJ .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Chadha, Mr. Raj Kumar Tanti, Mr. Rahul Saini and Ms.

Devanjali Chadha, Advocates versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP SI Ved Prakash, PS Jaitpur CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 1455/2025

1. The present application has been filed under Section 430 read with Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence till pendency of his appeal.

2. Appellant faced trial for commission of offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and was convicted thereunder. The appellant has preferred the captioned appeal seeking quashing/setting aside of judgment of conviction dated 08.11.2024 and order on sentence dated 18.03.2025, passed by learned Trial Court in Sessions case nos. 12/2018 arising out of FIR No. 508/2017, registered at PS Jaitpur, whereby he has been held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Appellant has been, inter alia, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2017, Govind (deceased-victim), son of Vijay Kumar and husband of Sita @ Shikha, left his residence (JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar), stating he would return shortly, however, he did not return home that night. On 03.10.2017 at around 04:30 a.m., Vijay Kumar (PW1 and father of deceased-victim) received calls from a neighbour, Chhotelal, and later from the Police, informing him that the deceased-victim, who had allegedly entered the house of appellant with intent to steal, had been caught, and sustained injuries. The deceased-victim was then taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where he was declared brought dead. Post-mortem report revealed multiple injuries, including lacerations, bruises, and abrasions.

4. During trial, the testimony of PW2 (Anil) was considered relevant in establishing the guilt of the appellant. He had, allegedly, seen the deceased-victim, having been beaten up by the appellant. PW2 had also then accompanied the appellant and deceased-victim to the hospital.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits, as the conviction rests on inconsistent, doubtful and uncorroborated ocular version of PW2, the alleged eye witness. He further submits that PW2’s testimony of the appellant having given three danda blows to the deceased-victim fails to highlight that such blows were given in self-defence at the back of the thigh of the deceased-victim, and thus there was no intention to kill. Moreover, at best, it was a case under Section 304 IPC and FIR was also registered for said offence. It is contended that the deceased had, in fact, sustained serious injuries when he tried to run-away and fell from the balcony.

6. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that apart from the above there is no other incriminating evidence against the appellant. Appellant is stated to be the sole bread earner and his family consists of his wife and a minor daughter, and that there is no other person in his family.

7. Learned counsel also submits that since the appeal is of the year 2025, there is less likelihood of it being heard in the near future. In these circumstances, he prays that the sentence of the appellant be suspended.

8. Learned APP for the State, vehemently opposes the present application, and submits that the appellant stands convicted for a heinous offence. He further submits, having regard the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, and the nature of evidence relied upon, the application of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence needs to be dismissed, outrightly.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP for the state, as well as learned counsel appearing for the victim, and hav