AJEET Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the applicant/appellant seeks suspension of sentence. He was convicted for committing murder of his brother in-law Suraj Mohan sometime on 19th September, 2006. The Appellant's counsel contends that there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies fatal to the prosecution case which were overlooked by the trial court in the impugned judgment. Amongst most vital of them, he argues was the lack of explanation as to the alleged time of death. According to the post-mortem report, the time of death was 36 hours prior to the commencement of the procedure i.e. 3.10 PM on 20th September, 2006. This would have meant that the time of death was sometime between 2.00 AM to 5.00 AM on 19th September, 2006.

(2.) However, the prosecution story piped through PW-3 was that the Appellant and the deceased were seen last together around 1.00 PM on 19th September, 2006. It was also emphasized that the testimony of the photographer about the time and the place of recovery of body where it was located i.e. whether the box was open or not is highly suspicious. It has been lastly contended by the counsel that the trial court has overlooked the fact that even though the body was allegedly recovered after 9.00 PM, no public witnesses including the wife of the deceased was joined in this.

(3.) Learned APP submitted that the trial court's reasoning is sound and the Appellant does not have a prima facie case. It was argued that the time taken in recording all the circumstances, it is proved that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the discrepancies in time, is a matter which can be considered later on during the proceedings.