Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pratap vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 11 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1154/2024
Sampat S/o Shri Suraja Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of
Chak Sardarpura, Meelo ka bas, Nohar District Hanumangarh.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1050/2024
1. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Anna Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Village Kanau, Police Station Gogamedi, Tehsil Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail, Bikaner)
2. Dashrath S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village Kanau, Police Station Gogamedi, Tehsil Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthah, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
Mr. Suresh Nehra
Mr. Sumer Singh Gaur
Mr. Deepak Meenaria (In SOSA
1050/2024)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Avinash Bhati for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
11/08/2025
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No.1154/2024
1. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant pointed
out that the present application for suspension of sentence has
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (2 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
been filed on behalf of Sampat, however, the Office has registered
the same in the name of Pratap.
2. Office is directed to correct the particulars of the present
suspension of sentence application No.1154/2024 and carry out
requisite corrections in the record of the High Court.
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence
Application(Appeal) Nos.1154/2024 and 1050/2024:-
3. The present applications have been filed by the applicants
under section 389 Cr. P.C. (Now Section 430 (2) of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
‘B.N.S.S.’) seeking suspension of the following sentences awarded
to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) vide order
dated 12.08.2024 passed in Session Case No.43/2016 (CIS
No.36/2016):-
Sr. No. Offence Sentence Fine 1. 147 IPC Two years' Rs.500/- and in rigorous default of which to Imprisonment further undergo one month simple S.I. 2. 302 IPC Life Rs.5,000/- and in imprisonment default of which to further undergo 2 years' S.I.
4. Arguing the applications for suspension of sentences, Mr.
R.S. Choudhary and Mr. Deepak Meenaria, learned counsel for the
applicants submitted the Investigating Officer has filed charge-
sheet relying upon statements of five eye witnesses namely PW-3
Jagat Singh, PW-6 Sawai Singh, PW-7 Shahnawaj and two others
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (3 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
namely PW-8 Jasram and PW-9 Bhajnaram, whereas their
presence on the scene at the time of occurrence is doubtful.
5. It was further argued that even if the prosecution’s case of
direct evidence is taken to be that of circumstantial evidence,
then also, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt. While highlighting that not only the
charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 read with Section 147
of the Indian Penal Code, even the the charges were framed as
such (under Section 302, 147 and 148 IPC).
6. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has not
recorded any satisfaction or reasoning as to why the applicants
have been convicted for the offences under Section 147/148 of
the IPC. They argued that once the charges were not framed
under Section 149 of the IPC, it was incumbent upon the trial
Court to have recorded its finding qua role of each of the
accused-applicants for committing murder, including the object.
7. Inviting Court’s attention towards the facts on record, more
particularly the site map (Ex. P-13), he highlighted that the place
where the deceased was found injured was office of the co-
accused Pawan, who has since passed away. It was further
argued that the story as projected by the complainant Jagat
Singh is unbelievable inasmuch as neither the deceased could be
dragged out of the vehicle through the window nor could he be
lifted and thrown in the office through the window by one person
namely – Ved Prakash.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (4 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
8. Learned counsel read the testimony of the eye-witnesses so
also the site report and highlighted that the gate of the Office was
closed and after the deceased being taken in the Office through
the window even the window was closed. Learned counsel
vehemently argued that such being the position none of the eye-
witnesses PW-3, 6 and 7 could see what was happening in the
office.
9. It was argued that the testimony of PW-8 and PW-9 claiming
themselves to be the eye-witnesses is unbelievable and they are
planted witnesses inasmuch as the Police has recorded their
statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2016 at least
25 days after the date of incident.
10. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of ‘lathi’ and
hockey stick has been been made from the three applicants, the
FSL report in relation there to is not reflective of human blood
much less the blood group. They added that similar is the position
of the clothes of the accused persons which were recovered from
them pursuant to their purported disclosure statements given
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
11. Having submitted so, learned counsel submitted that the
applicants have remained incarcerated for a period of two years,
hence, the sentence of the applicants be suspended, as hearing of
the appeal is likely to take substantial time.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that
the prosecution has proved the case beyond all doubts and
considering the testimony of eye witnesses followed by the
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (5 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
recovery of weapon of offence (lathi and hockey stick), the
applicants have no case worth acceptance of their applications for
suspension of sentence.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
14. On perusal of the record, we find that the Police was
informed at 11:45 p.m. on the date of incident. It is on such
information Indrajsingh – Head Constable (PW-2) proceeded to
the place of the incident, which is about 28 kilometers from the
Police Station. Said Indrajsingh has clearly stated that when he
reached the place of incident, no body was present.
15. Indisputably, the Head Constable – Indrajsingh had taken
the injured to the hospital which is about 30 kilometers and when
the deceased was admitted in the hospital, he was alive. That
apart, Post-mortem report suggests three injuries on legs while
one on the rib and all injuries are lacerated wound. The Post-
mortem report clearly shows that the brain and skull were intact
having no external injury.
16. We have our own doubts about the credibility of the so called
eye-witnesses PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 because had PW-3, PW-6
and PW-7 been with the deceased, they could have at least
informed the Police about their companion being kidnapped and
beaten. The complainant Jagat Singh came to lodge the written
complaint (FIR) in the morning the day next.
17. For the sake of argument even if it is presumed that they
were with the deceased when the door and window were closed
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (6 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
from inside, how these persons (PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7) could
have seen the persons inside the Office who had beaten the
deceased is a big question to be answered by the prosecution.
18. Testimony of PW-8 and PW-9 claiming themselves to be eye
witnesses is equally doubtful. Both these witnesses reside just
next to the place of occurrence. Yet, the Police has recorded their
statement on 19.07.2016 while the incident took place on
24.06.2016. That apart prior animosity of these witnesses and
the accused persons has come on record.
19. The Investigating Officer has not collected call details or
location of the deceased and accused persons.
20. Furthermore, FSL report does not indicate presence of
human blood much less the blood group which the deceased had.
21. We are therefore of the view that the applicants have a
strong and arguable case in their favour and their applications for
suspension of sentence merit acceptance.
22. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicants are hereby allowed. It is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 12.08.2024 in
Session Case No.43/2016 (CIS No.36/2016) against the applicants
1. – Sampat S/o Shri Suraja Ram, 2. Shankar Lal S/o Sh.
Anna Ram and 3. Dashrath S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall
be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (7 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their
appearance in this Court on 12.09.2025 and whenever ordered to
do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:-
(i) That they will appear before the trial Court in the month
of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(ii) That if the applicants changes the place of residence,
they shall give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
(iii) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will
give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
23. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicants do not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
24. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in
relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicants are prima-facie
opinion considering the material to the extent necessary for the
purpose of consideration of instant application. None of the parties
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35663-DB] (8 of 8) [SOSA-1154/2024]
shall rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the
time of arguing final hearing of the appeal.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
10-11-amit/-
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)