Nanu Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the material made available on record at the time of arguments. Instant application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused appellant who has been convicted for offence u/s. 302 IPC vide judgment dt. 21.11.2012.

Main thrust of the counsel for appellant is that the prosecution case is completely based on circumstantial evidence and all the independent witnesses PW 1 Shrawan Kumar, PW 2 Anwar, PW 4 Champa Lal & PW 7 Mahendra Kumar were declared hostile. As regards the last seen evidence there was statement of PW 10 Dilshad and as per prosecution story when the initial investigation was made and on the basis of inquest report Ex. P20 and written report Ex. P17 FIR was registered & despite the fact that Rajendra PW 9 & Mamraj PW 11 who were cousin brothers of deceased present in the hospital when the written report was made by Tara Chand PW 8 complainant brother of the deceased but either of them did not name the presence of the accused appellant. In addition to it counsel further submits that there was no motive behind the alleged crime if at all has been committed by the appellant and as regards the recovery made u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act of wallet of the deceased it was after four days of arrest of the appellant and there is no connecting evidence against the accused appellant for connecting him with the alleged crime but the learned trial judge has convicted him for the offence u/s. 302 IPC.

Counsel submits that motive is one of the salient factor which was missing and even if he was last seen that in itself would not consider to be sufficient to book the accused appellant for being convicted u/s. 302 IPC and as regards recovery is concerned, it is such a week evidence and in no manner could connect the accused appellant with the commission of crime.

Counsel for appellant further submits that the accused appellant is in judicial custody since 14.6.2010 almost for the period more than three years and further submits that the appeal which has now been ripped for hearing, the accused appellants are incarceration almost more than 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in due course of time.

Learned Public Prosecutor & counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the application and submits that there is last seen evidence of PW 10 Dilshad and also of two of the brothers PW 9 Rajendra & PW 11 Mamraj and recovery has also been made may be after few days of arrest of purse of the deceased and that is sufficient for connecting him and this fact stands established after by the learned trial judge has convicted under impugned judgment.

After hearing counsel for the parties and taking note of submission made and also material available on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant Nanu Ram, awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Sikar in Sessions Case No. (90/2010) 75/2010 BTN 86/12 vide judgment dt. 21/11/2012. It is ordered that the sentence of the appellant Nanu Ram S/o Sita Ram @ Raj Kumar shall remain suspended during pendency of appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 03/10/2013 and as & when called upon to do so.