Kanku vs State, Through P.p.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting the applicantappellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Learned counsel has further argued that the allegation against the applicant-appellant of committing murder of deceased Mangi Lal in the house of co-accused Kachra and Laxmi @ Babli is not proved by the prosecution by producing any cogent and reliable evidence.

It is contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence of this effect that the applicant-appellant went to the house of co-accused Kachra and murdered the deceased Mangi Lal. The dead body was found at abandoned place and the allegation against the applicant-appellant that she, after committing murder, had thrown the dead body there is not proved by the prosecution by producing any reliable evidence. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence only to prove the guilt of the appellant. It is further submitted that the recovery of weapons allegedly used in commission of crime is also doubtful. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that the sentences awarded to the applicant-appellant by the trial court be suspended during pendency of this appeal.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident and the prosecution has relied on the circumstantial evidence only, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the convictappellant.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur, vide judgment dated 11.01.2018 in Sessions Case No.76/2015 against the appellant-applicant Smt. Kanku wife of Mangi Lal Pandiya, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance in this Court on 06.03.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the applciant-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the applicantapplicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said applicant-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.