[2025:RJ-JP:20654] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 809/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 992/2025 1. Kumarpal S/o Shri Ramsingh, R/o Vanshi Bagri Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar) 2. Krishan Kanhaiya S/o Shri Kumarpal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vanshi Bagri Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Kumarpal S/o Shri Ramsingh and Krishan Kanhaiya S/o Shri Kumarpal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.12/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants are innocent and they were falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the complainant has filed a report against several persons but [2025:RJ-JP:20654] (2 of 5) [SOSA-809/2025] police has filed charge-sheet aginst three persons and one of them was found as juvenile and case against juvenile is pending before the JJB. He further submitted that facts and evidence clearly indicated that main allegation is upon juvenile and both these appellants were arrayed as an accused only on basis of their presence. He further referred the evidence of both injured PW-3 and PW-4 and submitted that allegation of these two appellants is for provocation. He also submitted that no injury whatsoever was assigned to any of the appellant and both appellants were convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC. He further submitted that injuries upon Saroj was examined by PW-11 Dr. Rahul Meena and injury No.3 was found to be grievous but same is not dangerous to life. He further submitted that neither radiologist nor radiographer was not examined by prosecution to prove that Saroj has suffered grievous injury. He relied upon judgment in case of Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Revision Petition No.100238/2021) (Kar HC) and submitted that if radiologist or radiographer is not examined by prosecution, then a person cannot be held guilty for grievous injury. He further referred injury report Ex.P-1 and evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and submitted that as per them injuries were caused by use of tractor but these injuries were not crushed injuries therefore the complainant has twisted the story and filed a false report to implicate appellants. He also referred the animosity and litigation between the parties and submitted that several cases were registered by complainant party against appellant Kumarpal and in most of the cases, he was acquitted. He further submitted that out of 7 cases registered against Kumarpal, five were disposed of and he was acquitted and [2025:RJ-JP:20654] (3 of 5) [SOSA-809/2025] one case is pending before the trial court. He submitted that his statement may be considered as statement at bar. He also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates along with report received from concerned police station and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex.P-1 dated 16.11.2021 lodged by PW-1 Parashram FIR No.344/2021 was registered at P.S. Ucchain, Bharatpur. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Kumarpal, Krishan Kanhaiya and Jitendra under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC but Jitendra was found to be juvenile and matter was referred to JJB. The trial court has framed charge against Kumarpal and Krishan Kanhaiya. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and have not submitted any defence evidence. Learned trial court has convicted appellants under Section 341, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellants is 7 years. 6. We have considered statement of complainant PW-1 and both injured PW-3 Saroj and PW-4 Savita along with eye-witness PW-5 Kailashi. The trial court has found that PW-6 Manish, Bhojpal and Hemant have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The trial court has considered rival claim about [2025:RJ-JP:20654] (4 of 5) [SOSA-809/2025] causing injuries by use of tractor and also considered the evidence of complainant, injured and PW-15 Rajesh (IO) on this issue. Both the appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. As per statement, there were 7cases against Kumarpal and except present case, all were registered 24 years ago and according to learned counsel for appellant, all these cases were decided. We have considered the nature of case as mostly relates to simple hurt and tresspass. There was one case against Krishan Kanhaiya. 7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Kumarpal S/o Shri Ramsingh and Krishan Kanhaiya S/o Shri Kumarpal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 29.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. [2025:RJ-JP:20654] (5 of 5) [SOSA-809/2025] 3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /29