LOCHANDAS SON OF DHOBADAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application seeking suspension of sentence is filed by the applicant Lochan Das, who has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further undergo six months' imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 48/2016.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the conviction of the applicant is based on the evidence of 'last seen' and recovery of blood-stained pant and stone. It is submitted that the witness of last seen, complainant PW-3 Surajdev @ Suryadev has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The witness of recovery PW-5 Shiv Narayan has also turned hostile and yet another witness of recovery PW-1 Ramdayal, though in examination-in-chief deposed that the bloodstained stone was recovered in his presence at the instance of accused Lochan Das vide Ex.P/8, in cross-examination he categorically deposed that on 14.03.2016, around 4.00 p.m., no blood-stained stone was recovered by the police in his presence. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence, solely on the basis of alleged recovery, the conviction of the applicant for offence under Section 302 IPC would not be sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the written report Ex.P/13, submitted by PW-3 Suraj Dev, it is specifically mentioned that on 12.03.2016, both the brothers Lochan Das and Devraj Das had gone from 'Dera' together and in the evening, on being asked by the complainant, Lochan Das revealed that Devraj Das had gone to the village. It is submitted that contents of Ex.P/13 as aforesaid, marked as 'A' to 'B', were accepted by the said witness to be correct. Similarly, the said witness has verified the contents of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Ex.P/14) and, therefore, merely because he was declared hostile, his testimony indicating towards the guilt of the accused cannot be discarded.