PRATAP RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Singh for the applicant-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. K.R. Bishnoi for the respondent-State and perused the record of the case. While pressing this application for suspension of sentence, the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant vehemently contended that the applicant-appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case; that the applicant-appellant is a young boy in about 21 years of age and no purpose would be served with his detention in this case.The learned counsel contended that though the case is set up on circumstantial evidence but then, the prosecution evidence as adduced is not making out a complete unfailing chain of circumstances so as to sustain conviction on its basis; that the prosecution has failed to establish the connectivity of the recovery of mobile with the offence alleged; and that the recovery of other articles, allegedly of the victim, has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court itself.

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has duly opposed the bail application.