Pramod Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2002 Latest Caselaw 500 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Appellant Pramod Kumar seeks suspension of the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Panel Code and has been awarded a sentence to undergo rigourous imprisonment for life besides payment of fine.

2. The facts of the prosecution case asserted are that on 19th December,1999 at about 7.30 PM a dead body of one Arjun Sharma aged 13 years was recovered from the toilet of Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi. The information was provided by one Vishnu. There were more than 10 injuries mostly lacerated wounds caused by hard and blunt object. The cause of death was injuries sustained on the skull. On 22nd December, 1999 the police had apprehended one Jitender with the help of some secret informer who during custody confessed certain facts which are not relevant. He made a disclosure statement about clothes worn and kept. In pursuance of his statement appellant even was arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had alleged that the only evidence available against the appellant on the record, which according to hi, is not reliable is that of last seen with the deceased playing the school ground. The blood found on the pants recovered from the house of the appellant was found to be of B group which was the blood group of the deceased. The statement of the solitary witness pertaining to the evidence of last seen was assailed on the ground that he was a young boy of 12 years and even his statement had been recorded after 3/4 days of the incident or in other words it was contended that he has been added as a witness only to bring home the guilt of the appellant if possible.

4. On the contrary the learned counsel for the State had vehemently contended that evidence on the record was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant and that there is no ground thus to suspend the sentence.

5. After looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances on the record we deem it appropriate and accordingly suspend the sentence of the appellant during pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. We by way of abundant caution deem it appropriate to add that nothing said herein should be taken as any expression of opinion on merits of the matter.