Suspension of sentence granted due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, indicating potential unreliability in witness statements.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

5 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Birendra Kumar, counsel for the informant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The appellant in this case seeks suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. He has been convicted vide judgment dated 07.06.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 22.06.2024 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IIIrd, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2019, arising out of Jehanabad (Kalpa O.P.) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2019 & G.R. No. 859 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 148 , 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(i) of the Arms Act . He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

3. The prosecution case is based on a written information (Exhibit ‘3’) under the signature of Shashikant Kumar (PW-3), who has stated that he got the written information drafted by his cousin brother Bimlesh Kumar (not examined). According to the First Information Report (FIR), on 05.05.2019, the informant along with his father was returning home from Jehanabad at about 06:00 PM. When they reached in front of the house of co-villager, namely, Devendra Singh then (1) Giresh Singh, (2) Awadhesh Singh, (3) Dharmendra Singh, (4) Upendra Singh, (5) Devendra Singh, (6) Pavan Singh, (7) Pramod Singh, (8) Kundan Singh and (9) Gunjan Singh all forming unlawful assembly and armed with weapons came out of the house and caught the informant’s father. When the informant tried to run and save his life, he saw that Devendra Singh, Pavan Singh, Dharmendra Singh, and Upendra Singh all took his father towards the North street behind the house of Devendra Singh and started firing. He also heard them shouting to kill his father. Giresh Singh instigated others to kill the informant’s father. The accused persons fired twice on the forehead, once on the cheek and another on the neck due to which he fell down. The informant ran shouting whereafter the villagers started coming there and the accused persons fled away. When the informant reached near the body of his father, he was soaked in blood, his slipper and spectacles were lying on the ground and blood stain was also present on the ground. The empty cartridge was also lying on the ground. The reason of the alleged occurrence is said to be land dispute between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case it is prima facie written that the occurrence took place on 05.05.2019 at 06:00 PM. The wife of the informant (PW 1) has stated in paragraph 13 of her deposition that about half an hour after the occurrence, the police had reached and had seen the dead body and prepared the papers. She has stated that her husband has for the first time given statement before the police which was recorded by the police on which her husband had put his signature. Referring to this part of the deposition of PW 1, learned counsel points out that in this case, the IO (PW 6) had prepared the inquest report (Exhibit ‘1’) and sent the dead body for post mortem, but till then no statement was given to the IO as per his evidence. The IO (PW 6) has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence after half an hour. In paragraph 21, he has stated that at the place of occurrence, he has asked for the statement, but nobody had given any statement, whereafter, at 12 O’ clock in the night, a written application was submitted. With these evidence on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first version