Suspended death penalty in appeal court: rejected suspension of sentence application due to insufficient evidence connecting appellant to crime, despite bail during trial and weak prosecution chain. Case remanded for paper book.
Application for suspension of sentence dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B.Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.232/2018
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 73/2018
Anand Kumar Sharda S/o Sh. Jagdish Ram, B/c Brahmin, R/o Ward No.8, Gayatri Colony, Pilani Police Station Pilani District Jhunjhunu. At Present Serving The Sentence At Central Jail, Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Pankaj Sisodia, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
07/09/2018
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel submits that the accused-appellant was on bail during trial. He has been implicated based on circumstantial evidence, though, not sufficient to connect him with the crime. The chain of circumstances has not been produced by the Prosecution. In fact, accused-appellant’s father and mother were killed by some unknown persons. The accused-appellant has been implicated only for the reason that he was missing for three
(2 of 3)
[SOSA-232/2018]
days from the day of occurrence and his mobile phone was switched off. Other than the aforesaid, no evidence could be led by the Prosecution. The recovery of blood stained brick for causing offence is quite a weak evidence looking to the nature of injury and otherwise, no motive has been shown to cause death. The prayer is accordingly to suspend the sentence of the accusedappellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that as per the report made by accused-appellant’s wife, he was at the residence along with parents while she went to attend the school. The accusedappellant did not attend the school on the day of occurrence thus was available at the residence accordingly, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies. It is further a fact that his blood stained “Baniyan” was recovered apart from blood stained brick for causing offence. The accused-appellant escaped after causing offence and surrendered after three days. In the meanwhile, he kept his mobile phone switched off. The evidence aforesaid apart from other evidence are sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime thus sentence of the accusedappellant may not be suspended.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that a case is not made out for suspension of sentence. Any comment on the arguments of either of the parties may affect final hearing of the appeal but taking into consideration the material available on record, we do not find a case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.
(3 of 3)
[SOSA-232/2018]
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant is directed to prepare and furnish paper book and on furnishing thereof, let the appeal be listed for hearing.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J
(M.N. BHANDARI),J
Preeti/10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anand Kumar Sharda
State Of Rajasthan
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Dinesh Chandra Somani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
