Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kusum vs State Of Rajasthan … on 4 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:28870-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 453/2025
Kusum W/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, D/o Shri
Mahaveer, R/o Ward No. 20, Uco Bank Wali Galij, Hanumangarh
Town, Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
04/07/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, in
Sessions Case No.04/2019 (CIS No.78/2019):
Offence Sentence Fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month's S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 430 B.N.S.S. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:52:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28870-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-453/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the report
was lodged on 01.07.2019 by the complainant Rahul Kumar (PW-
9) stating that his Tauji-Sohanlal aged about 75 years entered into
an altercation with his wife Kusum and son Mukesh @ Vicky. The
altercation was a result of discord in the family going on between
the parties, whereas on the same date, at about 11.15 p.m., when
the complainant Rahul Kumar along with his Chacha were passing
from the house of his Tau-Sohanlal (now deceased), they heard
the altercation and upon going there, they saw that his Tai-Kusum
and her son Mukesh @ Vicky were beating upon his Tau-Sohanlal
(now deceased). The present appellant is the Tai-Kusum, who is
alleged to have a wooden Paata and her son Mukesh was having a
brick and they both were causing injuries upon Sohanlal.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there
were six injuries and there were three daughters who were
examined as eye-witnesses but turned hostile.
3.2 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
only witness supporting the prosecution story was the complainant
Rahul Kumar and his Chacha Mahesh, but at the same time, he
submitted that Rahul Kumar himself was a Home Guard and as
per his colleague, whose version has been recorded by the learned
trial court, he was on duty at another area.
3.3 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
petitioner is a lady and the consideration of the lady in accordance
with law as provided under Section 437 of the CrPC extends to
Section 389 of the CrPC as well.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:52:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28870-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-453/2025]
3.4 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
appellant has undergone sentence of 1 year 8 months and 27 days
and the appellant was on bail during the trial.
3.5 Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of
this Court to the statement of Ex.P-1 Nisha @ Meenu under
Section 161 of the CrPC, in which she has stated that there was
altercation going on between her parents and when her father
Sohanlal (now deceased) attacked her mother, then her mother
retaliated by the wooden Paata on which she was sitting and when
her father again attacked her mother, that is the time when her
brother Mukesh intervened with a brick in his hand and caused
injuries on the head of his father Sohanlal.
3.6 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since
the case reflects of retaliation, then it could fall within the domain
of private defense or may be at best exceeding the right of self-
defense.
3.7 Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
factual matrix will not make the case travel beyond Section 304 of
the IPC.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence and submits that the deceased Sohanlal
was brutally assaulted by his wife and his son and the same has
been established by the statements of two witnesses, one is the
complainant Rahul Kumar and another is his Chacha Mahesh (PW-
14).
4.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the eye-
witnesses coupled with the other evidence gathered complete the
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:52:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28870-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-453/2025]
story of prosecution and thus the conviction has been rightly
made.
5. This Court, at this stage, is not inclined to continue the
custody of the present applicant-appellant while looking into the
peculiar matrix of the case and while keeping into consideration
the following recorded facts:-
(i) the custody of the accused-applicant i.e. 1 year 8 months
and 27 days;
(ii) the accused being a lady;
(iii) the doubt created in the story of the eye-witness Rahul
by his colleagues regarding his duty hours;
(iv) the issue emanating out of domestic discord;
(v) the story of retaliation reflected in the statement under
Section 161 of the CrPC of Ex.P-1 Nisha @ Meenu by the
mother in lieu of the violent advancement of the father
Sohanlal;
(vi) all the three daughters have turned hostile.
6. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by the passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, in
Sessions Case No.04/2019, against the appellant-applicant,
namely, Kusum W/o Shri Sohan Lal, shall remain suspended
till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released
on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of learned trial Judge for her appearance in this court
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:52:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28870-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-453/2025]
on 04.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. That she will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant change the place of
residence, she will give in writing his changed address
to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High
Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)
they will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
7. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
34-ajayS/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:52:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)