ARJUNS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Criminal appeal has been laid before me by the Honble the Chief Justice, under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for consideration of the application (I.A. No.755/2000) made by the appellants for suspension of sentence as the two Honble Judges (R.D. Vyas and Shambhoo Singh, JJ) comprising the Division Bench hearing the appeal, were equally divided in opinion as to whether or not the prayer for suspension of Jail sentences be granted.

(2.) Honble R.D. Vyas, J. was of the View that no prima facie case to release the accused on bail was made out. However, Honble Shambhoo Singh, ] was of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed and the appellants be released on their each furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(3.) Accused-appellants, namely; Arjun, Anil Mukesh and Virendra Singh have been convicted by the Turd AddI. Sessions Judge, Ratlam, under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/-, vide judgment dated 7-1-2000, in S.T. No. 109/99. The impugned conviction is based mainly on circumstantial evidence consisting of two components: One, last seen; and, two, recovery of blood stained weapons in the wake of disclosure allegedly made by the appellants while in police custody. It may, however, be clarified that the origin and group of the blood on the seized weapons could not be ascertained. Similarly, the evidence regarding last seen is available against appellant No.1 Arjun and No.2 Anil, not against No.3 Virendra Singh. The former two appellants are aged about 18 years, while the appellant No.3 is of 21 years age.