RAJ KUMAR ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the applicant under Section- 389(1) of Crl. Procedure Code for suspending his sentence during the pendency of the appeal and to release him on bail.

(2.) The applicant has contended that he is in custody since 16th November, 2004 and he has every chance of succeeding in appeal. The applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of Delhi and has roots in the society and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has very emphatically contended that the applicant has been convicted merely on the basis of the testimony of his six years old son. According to him, the testimony of his son regarding the applicant strangulating his wife, mother of the witness is not reliable as he had also admitted in the cross-examination that the applicant had not strangulated his wife. The other factor to caste a doubt on the testimonies of PW-7 Master Anubhav is that he remained with his in-laws for a considerable period after the alleged incident on 14/15th November, 2004 and his statement was recorded by the police on 1st February, 2005. Referring to the cross-examination of PW-2 Inspector Shyam Pant, it is pointed out that no reason has been given for not recording the statement for such a long period after the incident in the case diary nor any cogent reason has been disclosed by the said witness in his deposition recorded on 30th November, 2009.