1. Heard on I.A. No. 7441/19, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellants.
Vide judgement dated 27.03.2019 passed in S.T. No. 15/2014, the appellants have been convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under
section 307 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of rupees 1000/- each also with default stipulation.
According to case, on 27.11.2013, complainant-Bhupendra Singh has lodged the report in police station Simariya stating that he went to see farm then
one Jogendra Singh informed him through phone that accused-Ravendra, Botu@Arvind and their companion have assaulted his uncle Krishnapal
Singh. He reached on the spot and saw his injured uncle. On asking, victim stated that due to some dispute regarding irrigation, appellants along with
one co-accused Dhirendra have assaulted him with wooden stick and cudgel. Before assaulting victim of this case, appellants have also assaulted the
Chali Raja and Rajjan.
While arguing on application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent persons and have
falsely been implicated in the case. The learned trial court erred in convicting the appellants whereas there is no cogent evidence is available in the
case against them. He further submits that initially police has registered the case for the offence under sections 323, 239, 506-B, and 34 IPC, but after
investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 324 IPC. There is material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of witnesses, but trial Court did not consider the same and passed the order of conviction. There is much possibility to get success in
the appeal. Apart from that appellants are young persons and if they not release on bail, their future would be spoiled and purpose for filing this appeal
would also be frustrated. He prays for allowing this application.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submission of appellant's counsel.
Heard and peruse the record.
On perusal of record, it reflects that the allegation which found proved against the appellants is that on the day of incident appellants were armed with
deadly weapon and with the intention to kill the victim, they assaulted him. The trial Court has framed the charges for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 323(2-counts), 294 and 506(2-counts) of IPC but they have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC only.
Further it appears that the trial Court has examined as many as 18 prosecution witnesses and out of them 7 witnesses have turned hostile. Appellants
are in jail since the date of judgement and Appellant No. 1 has suffered about 8 months jail sentence period whereas appellants No. 2 and 3 have
suffered approximate 6 months. In the case, statement of Dr. Amit Mishra (PW-16) is important and he has deposed about the injuries caused on the
body of victim and opined that the injuries caused to victim is grievous in nature and danger to his life. Further, after considering the statements of
witnesses namely Bhupendra Singh (PW-3), Victim Krishnpal (PW-14), Rajjan Prajapati (PW-18) and others, at this stage it is not a fit case to
suspend the jail sentence of appellants.
Accordingly, this I.A. No. 7441/19 is dismissed. However appellant No.1 shall be a liberty to revive his prayer of suspension of sentence after passing
four months period from the date of this order. So far as appellant No. 2 and 3 are concerned they shall also be a liberty to revive their prayer after
passing six months.
