DALA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for suspension of sentence under Sec. 389 CrPC has been preferred by appellant-applicant Dala Ram, who has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dtd. 14/9/2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 31/2016.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh representing the appellant-applicant vehemently and fervently submits that there is no evidence worth the name of the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. He urged that the case of the prosecution is based totally on circumstantial evidence and a conjectural theory has been put up that the accused killed Banshi Lal owing to a land dispute and strung him up a tree so as to give the incident, shape of a suicide. He urged that ex facie, the evidence of motive is falsified in view of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported this theory. He also referred to the statement of Dr. Puranmal Mohnot (P.W.16), who categorically stated that the deceased Shri Banshi Lal expired due to antemortem hanging and that the sharp weapon injury noticed on his head was not even remotely connected with the death. He further urged that the recoveries effected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are totally concocted and fabricated. He further urged that a slip was received from the pocket of the deceased, which indicates that he was apprehensive that he might be done to death by persons, named, Dala Ram, Hadman Ram and Kona Ram etc. He urged that if at all it was a case of murder, manifestly, the accused would not have given a chance to the deceased to scribble this note and rather it is a clear case, wherein the deceased ended his own life by tying a noose and hanging from a tree. He urged that the appellant is in custody from last more than three years and hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. On these grounds, he implored the court to accept this application for suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. A.R. Nikub, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. They urged that Banshi Lal had sold his land to Jog Singh, whereas the accused appellants were desirous of taking the said land. Owing to this enmity, the accused first inflicted a sharp weapon blow on the head of the deceased, knocked him unconscious and then tied a noose to his neck and strung him from a tree so as to give the incident shape of a suicide. They, thus, urged that the applicant do not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of the appeal.