PRAVEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant applications for suspension of sentences.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel Shri Vineet Jain and Shri Navneet Poonia in support of the prayer for suspension of sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants is that two eye-witnesses namely Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They did not level any kind of allegation against the applicants-appellants. They further urge that the theory of extra-judicial confession deposed by PW-1 Khemraj is not specifically attributed to the either of the applicants. As per them, the highest allegation of the prosecution, even if accepted indicates that the accused Bharat was armed with a knife and it was he who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased Shankar. They urged that the applicants-appellants were on bail during trial and thus, they deserve same indulgence during pendency of the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that even in the investigational statement of the eye-witnesses Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) (who turned hostile) allegation of causing knife blows to the deceased was attributed to the co-accused Bharat.