Ajeet vs State

By way of this application, the applicant/appellant seeks suspension of sentence. He was convicted for committing murder of his brother in-law Suraj Mohan sometime on 19th September, 2006. The Appellant's counsel contends that there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies fatal to the prosecution case which were overlooked by the trial court in the impugned judgment. Amongst most vital of them, he argues was the lack of explanation as to the alleged time of death. According to the post-mortem report, the time of death was 36 hours prior to the commencement of the procedure i.e. 3.10 PM on 20th September, 2006. This would have meant that the time of death was sometime between 2.00 AM to 5.00 AM on 19th September, 2006. However, the prosecution story piped through PW-3 was that the Appellant and the deceased were seen last together around 1.00 PM on 19th September, 2006. It was also emphasized that the testimony of the photographer about the time and the place of recovery of body where it was located i.e. whether the box was open or not is highly suspicious. It has been lastly contended by the counsel that the trial court has overlooked the fact that even though the body was allegedly recovered after 9.00 PM, no public witnesses including the wife of the deceased was joined in this.

Learned APP submitted that the trial court's reasoning is sound and the Appellant does not have a prima facie case. It was argued that the time taken in recording all the circumstances, it is proved that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the discrepancies in time, is a matter which can be considered later on during the proceedings.

We have considered the submissions as well as the material placed on record. The single most important factor which the prosecution failed to explain was the time of the death. Even if maximum attitude is to be given to the post mortem report, the time of death was around 3.00 AM to 5.00 AM on 19th September, 2006. However, the prosecution's case was that the deceased was alive on 19th September, 2006 at 1.00 PM i.e. even five hours later. Added to this, the lack of explanation why the deceased's wife who lived in the premises was not joined as a witness for the recovery of his body when it took place around 10.00 PM. The appellant has already served more than 5 years in custody. The Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. We are of the opinion that the Appellant is-entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence subject, to his complying with the following directions :-

(i) Furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20.000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) Reporting of the Appellant after every three months commencing from 1st January, 2012 onwards in the concerned police station.

(iii) Informing the court as well as the concerned police station through an affidavit about his latest residential address. Even as and when he shifts the residence.

The application is allowed in the above terms.