MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second application for suspension of sentence. At the time of arguments on the first application for suspension of sentence, while the court granted the application for suspension of sentence of other co-accused namely, Nahnyaram, learned counsel has not pressed the application for suspension of sentence of present accused-applicant-Mukesh Kumar.

(2.) Learned counsel has vehemently argued that so far as accused-applicant-Mukesh Kumar is concerned, he cannot be said to have cut the ear of the injured by a kulhari as kulhari is not bloodstained. Secondly, he also submits that if statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by injured Ram Prasad, it was stated that the accused-petitioner had bitten his ear, whereas subsequently he changed his version and alleged that ear was cut by a kulhari.

(3.) Learned counsel has taken this court to the Exhibit (D1) i.e. statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 326 and 308 IPC, whereas he has already completed one year of imprisonment. He was on bail during trial and therefore he be released.