KOKIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

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

(3.) Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel while pressing the application for suspension of sentences on behalf of the accused applicant- Kokiya urges that as many as 21 assailants were named in the FIR (EX.P-1) lodged by Roopa brother of deceased Megha. He submits that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of eyewitnesses, there exists any allegation that the accused-appellant inflicted any blow to the deceased Megha. He further submits that in the FIR as well as in the evidence of eye witnesses, it is alleged that applicant appellant inflicted a sword blow on the neck of Lala. As per him, this allegation is totally contradicted by the operation note (Ex.P-20) and the evidence of medical jurist Dr. Anupam Johari (P.W.18) and the surgeon Dr. Vinay (P.W.19). He submits that as per the operation note and the evidence of the doctors, the injury on the neck of the injured Lala was caused by an arrow head which was recovered embedded inside the wound when the surgical procedure was carried out. He submits that ten accused were charge-sheeted by the police of which, seven have been acquitted. The medical evidence does not support the allegation against the applicant-appellant herein, as the role attributed to the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses is totally contradicted by the evidence of the doctors referred to supra. The applicant appellant was on bail during trial and thus, he deserves the same indulgence during pendency of the appeal.