MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Anil Joshi has chosen not to file reply to the instant application for suspension of sentences.

(2.) Heard on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Anuj Sahlot urges that the involvement of the appellant in the crime of murdering the deceased Hakra has not been established by any cogent evidence. As per the admitted allegations set out in the FIR (Ex.P-1), and the testimony of the material prosecution eye-witnesses viz. PW-1 Naresh, PW-2 Sushri Sangeeta and PW-3 Smt. Nima, the incident took place in two parts. In the first part, the accused-appellant and the co-accused Pintu allegedly took the deceased out of his house and thereafter, the co-accused Gauri Shanker, Dayalal, Smt. Kali W/o Gauri Shanker and Smt. Jaya W/o Dayalal allegedly assaulted him. As per PW-1 Naresh, co-accused Pintu was armed with knife and Gauri Shanker and Dayalal were armed with lathis. He urged that none of the prosecution eye-witness has alleged in the sworn testimony that the appellant was armed with any particular weapon. No recovery was effected from the appellant during investigation. He further submits that only two external wounds were noticed on the body of the deceased when autopsy was carried out as per the postmortem report (Ex.P-26) issued by Medical Officer Dr. Rahul Panchal and PW-15 Dr. Aajesh Damor. He thus, urges that it is clearly a case wherein the prosecution has indulged in wholesale over-implication of the accused. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. He thus urges that the accused-appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.