SONU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on suspension of sentence application (SOSA No.70/2017).

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant vide impugned judgment dtd. 15/9/2016. It is submitted that in the present case, the complaint was filed after around 15 days from the date of incident. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness or direct evidence available on record, however, the trial court has placed reliance on so called circumstantial evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, which is very weak and chain of events have not been connected by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence of co-accused Kumari Sanjana @ Ashu has already been suspended by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that the accused appellant is in custody from last more than 10 years and as such he has undergone 10 years of sentence, whereas the appeal filed by the appellant is not likely to be heard in near future. It is, therefore, prayed that the suspension of sentence application may kindly be allowed and the sentence of the appellant may kindly be suspended.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that from the evidence of the PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8, it is clear that it was the appellant who disposed of the dead body of his wife. It is argued that from the above piece of evidence the guilt of the appellant is very well proved, therefore, the sentence awarded to him by the trial court is not liable to be suspended.