The court denied the suspension of sentence as prima facie evidence, including 'last seen' testimony and CCTV footage, established the applicant's connectivity to the alleged offences.

Order

1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. (430 of BNSS, 2023 ) seeking suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ’trial Court’) vide judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed in Session Case No.50/2022, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 342, 302, 201 IPC and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of children)Act, 2015, and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned Amicus curiae has vehemently submitted before this Court that there is no credible evidence in the present case to implicate the applicant-appellant for the offences as alleged in this case. He submits that the PW-20 Nargis and PW-21 Arina who are the wife and the daughter, in their cross examination has stated that on the day of incident they have not seen the deceased having been taken away by the applicant-Julfakar @ Salman Mev. He further submits except the CCTV footage there is no credible evidence to connect the applicant in the present case. He submits that even in the CCTV footage no prosecution witness has identified the deceased-Duggu and it cannot be said that the applicant had taken away the deceased to the place of incident. The learned counsel submits that even the recoveries effected in the present case are not connecting the present applicant with the offences alleged in this case. He therefore prays that the application for suspension of sentence of the applicant may be allowed.

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the statements of PW-1 Dalchand, PW-3 Uday Lal and PW-4 Kalu Lal Meena, it has come on record that the deceased was seen alive in the company of the present applicant. He further submits that even the CCTV footage, more clearly shows that the applicant had taken away the deceased to same place and while coming back the deceased was not accompanying him and therefore, the last seen evidence clearly suggests that the applicant-appellant is the only person who has committed the murder of the deceased-Duggu. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at the instance of the applicant, the recovery of slippers of the deceased has been made.

4. We have considered the submissions made before us and gone through the relevant record of the case.

5. Taking into consideration the statements of PW-1 Dalchand, PW-3 Uday Lal, PW-4 Kalu Lal Meena, PW-20 Nargis and PW-21 Arina, we feel that prima facie the applicant-appellant has not been falsely implicated in the present case and is having connectivity with the offences alleged in this case. At this stage, we are not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence of the applicant-appellant and the same, therefore, is dismissed.