Karnataka High Court
B.C.Dhananjaya @ Jaya vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2018
Bench: Ravi Malimath, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H B PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.826 OF 2012
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.886 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.826 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
B.C.DHANANJAYA @ JAYA
SON OF CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NEWTOWN POLICE STATION
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.06.2012
PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE No.134 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE
FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED No.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 302, 506 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1 IS SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 READ WITH
34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1
IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR
2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
506 READ WITH 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1 IS SENTENCED TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND FINE OF RS.1,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE AND IN DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE
AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 6
MONTHS. ALL THESE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED No.1 PRAYS
THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.886 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. LOKESH @ KUANTA LOKI @ RAJU N
SON OF NARAYANA N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
HOUSE NO.123, 1ST CROSS
ZINK LINE
HUTTA COLONY
BHADRAVATHI
2. RAGHU @ G RAGHU
SON OF GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT: BEHIND THE
3
PADMA WINE STORES
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI:P B UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI:R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NEW TOWN POLICE STATION
BHADRAVATHI ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 26.06.2012 PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.134 OF 2009 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 302, 506 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 READ WITH
34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2
AND 3 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3 ARE
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE,
THEY SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 6
MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
302 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. ALL THESE
SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED.
*****
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased Mahesh went out of his house for the purpose of his business. He did not return. At about 4.30 a.m., PW-15, Sharavana came to the house of complainant and informed that the deceased was murdered and called them to the place of murder. Sharavana informed that on the said night, the deceased, himself, Ashoka @ Pamu and Kencha @ Loki had meals in his house. Thereafter, when the deceased was traveling on his two wheeler and returning to his house along with Kencha @ Loki as a pillion rider, the accused Nos.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained the deceased. They started quarrelling with him with regard to certain financial matters. Accused No.1 and others were armed with choppers and longs and they tried to assault the deceased. The deceased tried to escape by running away. He was chased by four persons and thereafter brutally assaulted. This matter was informed by Kencha @ Loki, through the mobile phone of Ashoka @ Pamu who was with Sharavana. Immediately, Ashoka and Sharavana went towards the scene of offence. Dhananjaya attacked the deceased with a chopper on his right 5 cheek and neck and caused grievous injuries and murdered him. Kunta @ Loki was instigating Dhananjaya to murder the deceased. Raghu and Manja chased Mahesh and caught hold of him. Sharavana and Ashoka could not stop the fight, since they were threatened by the attackers. That the incident took place around 3.30 a.m. on the night of 10.07.2009 and 11.07.2009. On coming to know that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries, the accused left the place. This information was given by Sharavana to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited the spot found the dead body of the deceased Mahesh had fallen on the 4th Cross, Velur Shed near the house of one Nagaraj. The deceased had sustained severe injuries on his cheek and neck.
2. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.104 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in New Town Police Station, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District against four accused persons. Investigation was taken up and the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the 6 offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, marked 20 exhibits and 11 material objects. The defence marked 7 exhibits. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By the impugned order, all the three accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and in default in payment of fine amount, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months. 7
4. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has filed Criminal Appeal No.826 of 2012 and accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.866 of 2012.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court committed an error in misreading the evidence on record. That the findings of the Trial Court is perverse in accepting the evidences of the so-called eye witnesses. That while considering the statement of the eye witnesses, it could be clearly seen that based on their conduct their evidences cannot be accepted. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be allowed by acquitting the accused.
6. On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He submits that even though five eye witnesses have turned hostile, the remaining eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. That the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and hence, no interference is called for.
7. Heard learned Counsels and examined the records.
8
8.(a) PW-1 and PW-2 who are stated to be the eye witnesses, have turned hostile.
(b) PW-3 is the witness to the inquest in terms of Ex.P3.
(c) PW-4 is a friend of the deceased who went to the hospital and saw the dead body in the mortuary. He is a hearsay witness.
(d) PW-5 states that he came to know about the death of the deceased and went to the scene of occurrence and thereafter to the hospital. He is a hearsay witness.
(e) PW-6 is the pancha to the spot mahazar, Ex.P4.
(f) PW-7 is the pancha for Ex.P5, regarding the seizure of the T-shirt, M.O.6 of accused No.1. He has partly turned hostile.
(g) PW-8 is the pancha for Ex.P5, mahazar for the seizure of T-shirt of accused No.1. He has turned hostile. 9
(h) PW-9 and PW-10 are the panchas for Ex.P6 with regard to the recovery of the chopper. They have turned hostile.
(i) PW-10 is also a pancha to Ex.P6, who has turned hostile.
(j) PW-11 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy and issued his report in terms of Ex.P7. He has narrated the various injuries sustained by the deceased.
(k) PW-12 is the Police Sub Inspector of New Town Police Station, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District, who has received the complaint and registered FIR in terms of Ex.P9, based on the complaint, Ex.P8.
(l) PW-13 is the Head Constable who arrested accused Nos.1 and 2.
(m) PW-14 is the eye witness. He has stated in his evidence that, Sharavana, Lokesha, deceased and himself are all friends. That on 10.07.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., Dhananjaya, Bannuru Manja, Kunta Loki, Raghu, Kencha Loki, 10 Mahesha, Sharavana had gathered at Sangam Bar situated at Jannapura and were chitchatting. Sharavana had invited them for dinner on account of a ceremony being performed in the name of his elders. He along with Mahesh, the deceased and Kencha Loki went to the house of Sharavana and had dinner. Kunta Loki, Dhananjaya, Bannuru Manja and Raghu did not go for the dinner and stayed back, near the circle. That at about 2.30 a.m., the deceased along with Kencha Loki as a pillion rider went on his motor cycle to the house of Sharavana. Thereafter, Sharavana accompanied him by walk upto Sangam Bar. At that time, Kencha Loki called him on mobile at about 3.15 a.m. stating that a quarrel was taking place between the deceased and Dhananjaya and that they should come over immediately. He and Sharavana went to the scene of offence and found Dhananjaya, deceased, Raghu, Kunta Loki and Kencha Loki at that place and they were all shouting loudly. Dhananjaya was demanding back the money from Mahesh who was stating that he would pay the amount later on. At that time, Dhananjaya took out the chopper and gave a blow on the face of the deceased. Mahesh dropped his bike and started running towards 4th cross by holding his hand 11 on the face. He and Sharavana tried to rescue Mahesh, but Dhananjaya threatened them by showing the chopper. Thereafter, Dhananjaya, Kunta Loki and Raghu chased the deceased. Raghu and Kunta Loki caught hold of the deceased and Dhananjaya assaulted the deceased on his head with a chopper and the deceased fell down. At that time, Raghu and Kunta Loki stated that Mahesh was not yet dead and that he should be finished. He has further stated in his evidence that he went and informed this matter to the elder brother of the deceased.
In the cross examination, he has narrated some more details of the incident. It is further elicited in his cross examination, that there were a number of police cases pending against the deceased for various offences.
(n) PW-15 is Sharavana. He has stated in his evidence that Kencha Loki, Kunta Loki, Dhananjaya, Raghu and himself are all friends. That on 10.07.2009, at about 10.00 p.m. they had gathered near Sangam Bar. That they were chatting and at that time, he invited all his friends for dinner to his house since he had performed a pooja ceremony 12 of the elders. The deceased, Kencha Loki and Ashoka went to the house of Sharavana. Others did not accompany them and stayed back near the circle. At about 2.30 a.m. the deceased and Kencha Loki went on their two wheeler. Thereafter, he had accompanied Ashoka upto Sangam Bar circle and at about 3.15 a.m., Ashoka got a call on the mobile phone, wherein, it was informed that Dhananjaya and deceased were fighting with each another at Velur shed. Immediately, they went towards Velur shed and found Dhananjaya assaulting Mahesh with a chopper on his cheek in 5th cross. Mahesh started running towards 4th cross. He was chased by Kunta Loki, Raghu and Dhananjaya. Raghu and Kunta Loki restrained Mahesh by holding him. Dhananjaya gave a threat to Sharavana and Ashoka, when they came to rescue the deceased. Mahesha was assaulted on his head with the chopper and murdered in the 4th cross.
In the cross examination, he has stated that the place of incident and his house are nearby. That he did not inform the said incident to the police. That the police did not record 13 his statement upto 13.07.2009. Thereafter, his statement was recorded on 13.09.2009.
(o) PW-16 has stated in his evidence that he works as a Mason and resides in the 3rd cross of Velur shed. That on the date of incident, he was sleeping. He awoke because he heard some noise. He came out of his house and found that Dhananjaya, Kunta Loki, Kencha Loki and deceased were fighting. Thereafter, Dhananjaya took out a chopper from his back and assaulted the deceased on his face. The deceased started running and he was chased by Dhanajaya, Kunta Loki and Raghu. Upon seeing the deceased coming towards him, he went back towards his house. Thereafter, he came to the 4th cross and saw Dhananjaya assaulting the deceased with a chopper on his head. Kunta Loki informed that the deceased had not died and at that time, Dhananjaya threatened Sharavana and Ashoka not to come near them.
He has stated in the cross examination that he was a member of "Kannada Ranadeera Pade", wherein PW-14, PW- 15 and the deceased were members. When the police arrived 14 at the scene of offence in the morning hours, he did not inform anything to the police of having seen the incident. That he did not even narrate the said incident to anyone else also. His statement was recorded by the police only on 13.09.2009.
(p) PW-17 is the elder brother of the deceased. He is a hearsay witness. He is the complainant who has reached the scene of offence on the information given to him.
(q) PW-18 is the friend of the deceased who subsequently came to know about the murder of the deceased.
(r) PW-19 is the mother of the deceased.
(s) PW-20 is the Police Constable who kept a watch over the dead body and got the postmortem report in terms of Ex.P7. He has produced the clothes before the Investigating Officer in terms of M.Os.8 to 11.
(t) PW-21 is the Police Constable who has carried the articles to FSL.
15
(u) PW-22 is the Investigating officer who took up further investigation from PW-12 and who has filed the charge sheet.
9. Based on these evidences, the Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the three accused. That the evidence of the eye witnesses, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 were accepted by the Trial Court, that they have seen the incident, and therefore, convicted all the three of them.
10. We have considered the evidence at length. The evidence of all the eye witnesses appears to be similar. The incident is said to have occurred at about 3.30 a.m. The statement of the eye witnesses would indicate that having seen the incident, the same was informed to the complainant by PW-14 and PW-15. Thereafter, nothing happened. In the early hours of the morning, everyone had gathered near the place of incident. The eye witnesses, PW-14, PW-15 and PW- 16 were also found at the scene of offence. In the complaint lodged before the police, the names of the appellants as well 16 as another person were narrated. Therefore, the police were aware of the appellants herein and were arrayed as accused in the complaint. The police were present at about 6.00 a.m. along with the neighbors. However, the complaint was lodged with the police at about 8.30 a.m. In the said complaint, the names of the four accused were narrated. However, they do nothing about it. The statement of the accused is recorded two days thereafter on 13.07.2009.
11. Therefore, the appellants' counsel contends that when the police themselves were aware of the assailants and their names were narrated in the complaint, they have done nothing about it. Therefore, it has to be presumed that they are tutored witnesses. They are not the real eye witnesses to the incident. It is further contended that the normal conduct of the person having seen the assault being committed, would be to react to the same. None of the witnesses have reacted to it. On the contrary, they kept quite and make a statement only on 13.07.2009.
17
12. On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that every person's reaction in seeing an incident varies from one to another. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB Vs HARDAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5131 with reference to paras 6 and 7, which reads as follows:
"6. Before we advert further, we may at this stage point out that by now it is well settled principle of law that there is no set rule of natural reaction. Everyone reacts in his own special way and in what way the witness should react cannot be predicted. In Rana Pratap and Others Vs. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327, in paragraph 6, it was pointed out as under:
"yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person who witnesses murder reacts in his own 18 way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way."
7. This Court in Bachittar Singh and another Vs State of Punjab (2002) 8 SCC 125, on human behaviour, held as under:
"Human behaviour vary from man to man. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a man would behave in a particular situation, can never be predicted. In the given circumstances, the behaviour of Joginder Singh P.W.3 sleeping on the roof of the house of Sukhwant Singh, after seeing the accused armed with weapons and hearing of firing, jumping from the roof and running towards his village 19 Mastewala to inform his father and family members instead of loitering around in the village Dholewala and informing somebody risking his life, is quite natural. One should not forget that the incident had happened at 1.00 a.m. and that at that odd time, nobody would be readily available to be informed without loss of time. In the process, the life of the witness would be at great risk."
13. On hearing learned Counsels, we are unable to accept the contention of the State on this point. It is no doubt true that every person would react differently. In the given set of circumstances, it is no doubt true that there are no set rules of natural reaction. Human behavior varies from man to man. However, keeping this factor in mind, the evidence on record would have to be weighed for what its worth.
14. The case of the prosecution is that PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16, the eye witnesses to the incident, have seen the assault on the deceased and the manner in which the assault took place. However, what we are unable to reconcile, is the absolute silence of the witnesses. Firstly, there is no reaction by them in order to save the deceased. Secondly, the eye 20 witnesses state that they were threatened with dire consequences that in case they come to rescue the deceased, they would be assaulted. Therefore, in the fear of being assaulted by the attackers, the witnesses did not inform anyone about the incident immediately, thereafter. Even if the said contention is to be accepted, the evidence on record would indicate that on the next day morning, all of them assembled along with the neighbours of the vicinity. The appellants were also present. Even then, none of the witnesses speak about of having seen the incident at all. They maintained absolute silence. The police who came to know of their involvement at about 8.30 a.m. on the same day, did not do anything. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the said evidence as being true. If at all, PW-14, PW- 15 and PW- 16 actually saw the incident, they would have narrated the same at the earliest point of time. They have failed to do so. In our considered opinion, we find it difficult to accept the evidence of these three witnesses.
15. Even assuming none of the witnesses speak about the incident till early morning, reasonably it could be expected that they would have narrated the same at the earliest point 21 of time which could be in the morning of the date of incident. However, all the three of them remain silent and have narrated the same when their voluntary statements are recorded on 13.09.2009. Therefore, we find that the Trial Court committed an absolute perversity in accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses while convicting the accused. On considering the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the reasoning of the Trial Court, we are of the view that appreciation of the evidences of the eye witnesses is highly inappropriate. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in accepting the evidences of the eye witnesses, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 requires to be reversed.
16. The further fact is with regard to the background of the witnesses as well as the deceased. The material on record would indicate that there are a number of police cases pending not only against the deceased, but even so far as the eye witnesses are concerned, for various offences committed by them. The theory put forth by the prosecution that the witnesses were not in a position to speak or react would necessarily have to be weighed in the background of the character of the witnesses. It is not the case that the eye 22 witnesses, PW-14 and PW-15 are commoners. They are criminals against whom various complaints are pending at various stages. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the theory of the prosecution that the witnesses with such a background, could be threatened or subdued. The argument could have been accepted if the same would be relatable to a commoner. Therefore, the said explanations of the eye witnesses keeping quite due to the threat meted out by the attackers, cannot be accepted.
17. So far as PW-16 is concerned, his evidence would narrate that he having seen the assault on the deceased, the deceased coming running towards him and he went towards his house. Thereafter, he follows the attackers and the deceased and in the next two minutes witnesses in detail the assault on the deceased. He comes back home and does nothing about it.
18. The explanation offered by PW-14 is that he telephoned the complainant and informed him about the incident taking place. However, so far as PW-16 is concerned, he does nothing of that sort. He does not even choose to 23 intimate the incident to anyone, in spite of he having known the deceased. Therefore, this also leads to a serious doubt in the evidence of PW-16 as to whether he is a genuine eye witness or not.
19. So far as the other factors are concerned, the recovery of blood stained clothes M.O.6 - shirt of accused No.1 cannot be accepted since the recovery is made five days after the incident and that he was wearing the same blood stained shirt for five days. So also the recovery of the chopper in terms of M.O.7 has not been proved.
20. The contention is that since the witnesses have turned hostile, the FSL report should have been put to the accused. However, we find that the same is irrelevant, in view of the fact that when the recovery of the articles have not been proved, the question of FSL report not being put to the accused, therefore, would become insignificant. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Trial Court committed a perversity in accepting the evidences and has wrongfully convicted the accused. Having considered the 24 evidence of the eye witnesses from all angles, we do not find any reason to accept the same.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Appeal No.826 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2012 are allowed.
The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.06.2012 in S.C.No.134 of 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is set aside.
The appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No.826 of 2012 namely, B.C.Dhananjaya @ Jaya, son of Channappa and the appellants-accused in Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2012 namely, Lokesh @ Kuanta Loki @ Raju.N, son of Narayana.N and Raghu @ G.Raghu, son of Govindappa, are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case/s.25
Registry to communicate the operative portion of this order to the Central Prisons, Parapanna Agrahara, Bengaluru, forthwith.
IA.1 of 2012 filed for suspension of sentence and bail does not survive for consideration and hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-