Birbalram And Ors vs State, Through P.p.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has submitted that the trial court has committed error in convicting the appellant-applicants for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. It is further submitted that only one pistol was recovered at the instance of appellant-applicant Birbal Ram and as per the evidence produced by the prosecution, only one gunshot was fired. It is submitted that it is difficult to comprehend that by one gunshot only, several persons have been injured.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has further submitted that there is no recovery of any weapon from the appellant-applicant No.2 Shankar Lal and only two cartridges were recovered from him. It is also submitted that initially the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant-applicants, however, later on two more persons were summoned but the trial court has acquitted those persons namely Bhura Ram and Ram Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has submitted that from the entire evidence, the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is not made out against the appellant-applicants, therefore, their sentences be suspended.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentences and argued that the eye witnesses and injured have specifically deposed against the appellant-applicants. It is also submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the applicant-applicants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, their sentences are not liable to be suspended.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; gone through the impugned judgment as well as scrutinized the record, we are of the opinion that prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is made out against the appellantapplicants.

Hence, this criminal misc. suspension of sentence application is dismissed.