ISHWAR SINGH 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.) Learned counsel Mr. Shrimali submits that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the applicant appellant with the crime. The story put-forth by the prosecution that the appellant was having illicit relations with the co-convict Smt. Sushila Bai wife of the deceased Ramniwas has been denied by PW-7 Sunil (son of the deceased) and PW-18 Gaurilal (brother of the deceased). He further submits that recovery of the driving licence and the diary of the deceased made at the instance of the accused applicant, is otherwise unbelievable and that apart, the evidence of Mohan Singh (PW-8) clearly establishes that the diary, licence, etc. were recovered by the police from the spot as they were lying near the deadbody. He contends that all the three co-accused namely Sukhvender Singh @ Lalu, Gurvinder Singh and Smt. Sushila Bai have been granted bail by this Court. He further urges that the evidence as against the appellant is weaker as compared to these co-accused and thus, the applicant appellant deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that from the evidence of PW-7 Sunil and PW-18 Gaurilal, the prosecution case regarding the accused appellant having engaged in an illicit relationship with the co-accused Smt. Sushila Bai, becomes doubtful. Furthermore, PW-8 Mohan Singh, being the witness of recovery, categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that the licence and the diary of the deceased were recovered by the police from the spot when the deadbody was searched. Thus, the recovery of these articles made at the instance of the accused comes under a serious cloud of doubt.