CHAMPALAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally.

(2.) Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

(3.) Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the applicant appellant vehemently and fervently urged that as per the statement of Smt. Hemli PW-8 the star eye-witness, the incident took place in the agricultural field after a trivial dispute. The appellants allegedly inflicted lathi blows on the hands and legs of her husband Khema Ram. He referred to the statement of Dr.Manoj Garg PW-9 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Khema Ram and opined that the head injuries caused to the deceased were simple in nature. Fractures were noticed on his left forearm and on the left and right fibula bones. Shri Jain pointed out from the doctor's statement that the incident took place on 11/11/2013 and Khema Ram expired while undergoing treatment after 13 days i.e. on 24/11/2013. As per Shri Jain, in the above circumstances, the offence, if any, attributed to the appellants would not travel beyond Sec. 325 or at best Sec. 304-II of the IPC. He urged that appellants have remained in custody for last nearly five years. The length of the custodial period suffered by them and the admitted facts and circumstances, do not justify their further detention. He, thus, craves indulgence of bail for the appellants during pendency of the appeal.