BUDHRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is argued that there is no direct evidence against the appellant-applicant and the trial court has relied upon the so called circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, but the wholesome reading of the said evidence will not be sufficient to conclude that the appellant-applicant has committed murder of deceased .. Pappu. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant while inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, who are near relatives of the deceased, has argued that none of the witnesses has levelled direct allegation against the appellant-applicant. It is further submitted that the trial court has placed much reliance upon the evidence of Babu Lal (PW-1) while treating him as last seen witness, however, as per the evidence of Babu Lal (PW-1), he saw the appellant-applicant and the deceased together on 31/7/2015, whereas the dead body of Pappu was recovered on 3/8/2015. It is also submitted that one leg of deceased Pappu was amputed, but the said amputed part has not been recovered by the police. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as recovery of the weapon is concerned, one stick and farsa were recovered at the instance of the appellant-applicant, but these weapons were not sufficient to ampute the deceased's leg. It is also submitted that the appellant- applicant has undergone sentence of more than six years till date and there is no likelihood that the appeal preferred on his behalf will be heard in near future, therefore, sentences awarded to him by the trial court may be suspended.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentences. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the circumstantial evidence such as last seen, recovery of weapon and the motive are proved by the prosecution and the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the complainant, thus, prayed that it is not a fit case where sentences awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial court may be suspended.