AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”) alongwith the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Kota (Raj.) vide judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.531/2021 (C.N.R. No.RJKT01-007810-2021) as under:-
1.Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹1,00,000/-; in default whereof, six months' additional simple imprisonment.
2.Under Section 324 IPC: Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹20,000/-; in default whereof, three months' additional simple imprisonment.
3.Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act: Two years' simple imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000/-; in default whereof, one month's additional simple imprisonment.
All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the deposition of Mr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), the shop owner, in front of whose shop, the crime was committed, argued that he has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. He, therefore, prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submission and prayed for dismissal of the application.
Heard. Considered.
The allegation against the applicant is of causing murder of his wife-Smt. Rizwana @ Antim by multiple injuries with knife. The allegation stands corroborated from the Postmortem Report of the body of the deceased (Exhibit P.-15) which was proved by Dr. Brijesh Tatwal (PW-11) who conducted the autopsy. We have gone through the testimony of the injured eye witness and niece of the deceased, namely, Ms. Srishti Yadav (PW-14) and find the same to be trustworthy and reliable. Further, the weapon of offence was recovered on his disclosure statement. In view of the aforesaid testimony, we do not find it prudent to give any credence to the testimony of PW-2 at this stage.
In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we do not find it to be a fit case of suspension of substantive sentence awarded to the applicant.
Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed.