DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the third application for suspension of sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the deceased and the appellant were neighbours and while they were working in the agriculture field, a quarrel took place between them and in that quarrel, the injured received some injuries. Learned counsel while inviting our attention towards the statement of Dr. Ram Hari Meena (PW-7) has submitted that in his statement, doctor Ram Hari Meena has suggested that all injuries on the body of the deceased are blunt and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result rupture of spleen and there is all possibility that the said injury was caused due to falling down on the land and not by any weapon. Learned counsel has further submitted that no deadly weapon was used in the commission of crime and only a stick was recovered from the agricultural field, which was used in the commission of crime. It is further submitted that till date the appellant-applicant has undergone more than 5 years and 9 months of the sentence and there is every possibility that the appeal preferred by the appellant-applicant will not be heard in near future.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.