RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence No.884/2021.

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment. It is argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to suggest that the appellant had committed the crime. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the incident took place in the year 1999 and in the complaint, none of the persons has been named and the same was filed against unknown persons.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further submitted that the accused-appellant was arrested in the year 2017 only and thereafter, the investigation was conducted. It is also submitted that no weapon, alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, has been recovered and the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant solely on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Shyamu Nath and PW-2 Daulatbai, who happened to be the son and wife of the deceased respectively, however, from their statements also, the guilt of the accused-appellant cannot be proved.