BALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Ss. 341, 323, 324/34, 325, 307/34 of the IPC vide judgment dtd. 8/2/2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the defence that the applicants herein have been falsely implicated in the case. Inviting the court's attention towards the statements of Medical Officer Dr. Pramod Jeman (P.W.-9) and Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11) coupled with the X-ray report (Exhibit P-14) and final opinion report of the Doctor (Exhibit D-4), learned counsel pointed out that the injured Hari Prakash had suffered one fracture on his hand and other fracture on his leg, which are not on the vital part of the body. Dr. O.P. Dayama (P.W.-11) has admitted in his crossexamination that he had only expressed the possibility of fractures of Hari Prakapsh being 'likely' to fatal to his life. The prosecution has failed to prove that any of the injuries caused to the Hari Prakash were on the vital part of the body or were inflicted by any deadly weapon. No definite opinion of the doctor is available on the record. Hence, as per him, manifestly it is a case where the applicants have been falsely implicated owing to prior enmity. He submitted that the applicants were on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail so granted to them by this Court. On these grounds, he implored the Court to allow the application for Suspension of Sentence and direct to release of applicants on bail during pendency of appeal.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the defence counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that injuries were not on the vital part.