SANGEET LODHA, J. - (1.) The applicants life convict, who have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 364 and 302/149 IPC by the judgment and order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, have preferred this application for suspension of sentence.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has drawn our attention to the deposition of the eye-witnesses PW-5 Puna Ram, PW-6 Birdha Ram and PW-7 Jagdish. Learned counsel submitted that as per the deposition of the eye-witnesses, the injuries were caused by the accused persons by blunt weapons, i.e. hockey, lathi and iron road etc. Drawing the attention of this court to the postmortem report (Ex. P/21), learned counsel submitted that none of the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by blunt weapons inasmuch as none of injury is reported to be lacerated wound. Drawing the attention of this court to the deposition of PW-7 Dr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel submitted that the doctor has categorically deposed that none of the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by blunt weapon. It is pertinent to note that as per the postmortem report, three grievous injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which are incised wounds, which obviously could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence and the apparent contradictions clearly reflect that the eye-witnesses PW-5 Puna Ram, PW-6 Birdha Ram and PW-7 Jagdish, were planted witnesses and, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that no recovery was made at the instance of the applicants-accused and, therefore, in absence of cogent evidence, charges against the applicants cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that during the trial, applicants were on bail.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the bail application. Mr. J.S. Choudhary contended that the finding of guilt against the applicants for the offences charged has been recorded by the learned trial Judge after examination of the evidence in entirety and objectivity. The conviction of the applicants is based on cogent evidence on record and, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, the fact that ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. It is submitted that on account of absence of corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be brushed aside.;