LALARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Abu Road, District Sirohi in C.I.S. Case No. 02/2019 (CIS No. 02/2019):

(2.) He has preferred the instant application for suspension of sentences under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. craving suspension of sentences and release on bail, during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel representing the appellant applicant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution has come out with a case that the appellant herein inflicted a stone blow on the head of the victim Shri Rangaram and thereby killed him on 24/11/2018. He pointed out that the FIR came to be lodged after significant delay i.e. on 25/11/2018 at 11.30 am. nearly more than 12 hours after the incident. He urged that the two star prosecution witnesses Smt. PW-1 Sonki wife of the deceased and PW-8 Shri Tripal Singh @ Deepak son of the deceased gave highly contradictory versions regarding the incident. He further urged that the conduct of these witnesses is absolutely unnatural. They took no step whatsoever to take the victim to the hospital after he allegedly received injuries at the hands of the accused. He drew the Court's attention to the statement of Tripal Singh wherein, he admitted that after the assault allegedly made by the appellant on the head of Shri Rangaram by a stone, his father walked back on his own and went to sleep on a cot. Thereafter, he expired. Shri Bijarnia submitted that had there been an iota of truth in the prosecution story, there was no rhyme or reason behind this sequence of events and in natural course, the family members would have taken the injured to the hospital. He further submitted that Sonki (PW-1) stated that incident took place in front of their house whereas Shri Tripal Singh (PW-8) stated that incident took place behind their house. Thus, there is a serious discrepancy regarding the place of incident in the statement of two so-called eye-witnesses. On these grounds, Shri Bijarnia implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct release of the appellant on bail, during pendency of the appeal.