Laxman Singh vs State, Through P.p.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Shri S.D. Purohit, submits that ex-facie evidence of the two eye-witnesses, PW-4-Ganesh Singh and PW-5-Bheru Singh is unreliable. He urged that PW-4-Ganesh Singh did not allege in his examination-in-chief that he saw the appellant and the deceased going besides each other or the appellant armed with any weapon. In his cross-examination, Ganesh Singh admitted that as his vision was blocked by bushes, he could not precisely see as to what was the weapon with which the appellant assaulted the deceased-Laxman Singh. Learned counsel further pointed out that PW-5-Bheru Singh did not even claim in his examination-in-chief that he actually saw the accused-appellant-Laxman Singh inflicting a blow of sword upon the deceased. Learned counsel, thus, urges that conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the recovery of blood stained sword & clothes, moreso, when he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. He, thus, urges that the appellant, who is in custody since 2015, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of this appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant at Bar and urged that two eye-witnesses, viz., Ganesh Singh and Bheru Singh, whose statements were relied upon by the trial Court, are independent witnesses and their testimony is reliable, and thus there is no reason to extend indulgence of bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal.

We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record.

Any comment on the veracity of evidence of the two eye-witnesses, may prejudice the decision of the appeal but even at this stage, the stark discrepancies in their evidence cannot be ignored. It is clear from a cursory perusal of the testimony of these two eye-witnesses that their versions are highly contradictory. PW-4-Ganesh Singh did not state in his evidence that he saw the appellant carrying a sword with him. In cross-examination, he admitted that his vision was blocked by bushes and thus he could not see as to the manner in which the accused was assaulting Laxman Singh. PW-5-Bheru Singh did not allege that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased by a sword.

Considering the fact that the accused-appellant is in custody for the last more than four years and the appeal is likely to consume time, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences.

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 Sessions Judge, Pali, vide judgment dated 21.02.2019 in Sessions Case No.27/2016 against the appellant-applicant Laxman Singh S/o Rod Singh (Mot Singh), shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 24.02.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their 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 accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.