CHENA RAM 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 Senior Counsel Mr. Choudhary urges that entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. He urged that the charge against the accused appellant was that he conspired with the accused Kalu Ram for the murder of Dhanna Ram. However, the trial Court discarded the evidence of motive, eye-witnesses account and thereafter proceeded to acquit the co-accused persons from the charges. The accused appellant too was acquitted from the charge under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B IPC. However, acting solely on weak circumstances of recovery of axe and the matching foot moulds, the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC simplicitor. He urges that the evidence regarding taking up of specimen foot mould is doubtful. He further urges that it is doubtful that injury of the nature noticed on the head of the deceased could have been caused by a Kassi. He further urges that the accused appellant was on bail during the course of bail. He thus, craves acceptance of the instant application for suspension of sentences.