[2025:RJ-JP:27439] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1188/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1612/2025 Jitendra Alias Jeetu S/o Rampal, R/o B Block Jaswant Nagar Sewaram Near Oil Mill Mathura Phatak Police Station Shivaji Park Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta with Ms. Anisha Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 22/07/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by appellant-accused Jitendra @ Jeetu S/o Rampal in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.06.2025 in Sessions Case No.61/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar, whereby this appellant was convicted under Section 306 IPC and further sentenced to simple imprisonment of 5 years with fine of ₹10,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he is having no connection with complainant- party. He further submitted that the facts brought before the Trial Court clearly indicate that victim (deceased) has never met [2025:RJ-JP:27439] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1188/2025] appellant, before committing suicide by her. He also submitted that the reason of suicide was different than narrated by complainant in his complaint. He also referred the findings of the Trial Court and submitted that call details were not supported by certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and even the Nodal Officer of Mobile Service Provider is not produced in evidence to prove CDR. He also submitted that after attempt of suicide by deceased, she was taken to hospital and against medical advice, she was discharged by her parents, and while taking back to home, she died and without informing the police or conducting post mortem, final rites were performed by family of deceased. He further referred Section 107 of IPC and submitted that it is duty of the prosecution to prove that appellant-accused is responsible for causing abatement, which resulted into suicide by deceased. He also referred the material contradictions and discrepancies and submitted that the Trial Court has ignored them before drawing a conclusion of conviction. At last, he submitted that appellant-accused was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted custody certificate. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of report (Ex.P-1) lodged by PW-1 (Meena Saini) on 27.03.2014 about suicide of his daughter on intimidation and harassment by Jitendra @ Jeetu (present appellant) for last two months, FIR No.117/2014 under Sections 116 and 306 IPC was registered at Police Station Shivaji Park, District Alwar. After [2025:RJ-JP:27439] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1188/2025] investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against appellant- accused under Section 306 IPC, and after framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, exhibited 22 documents and 2 articles. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but he has not submitted any defence evidence, though, exhibited three documents. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused. 6. We have considered dying declaration Ex.P-17 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metro. The statement clearly indicate that the appellant-accused has never met the deceased. We have considered statement of PW-1 (mother of victim) particularly her cross-examination and also considered the statement of PW-2 (Manju). PW-8 Dr. Dhruv Singh has exhibited IR Ex.P-8 and deposed that the victim has sustained 95-100% burn injuries and also considered statement of Investigating Officer (PW-12 Sachin Sharma). It is not possible to express any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. The appellant-accused was released in pursuant to order dated 23.09.2015 in Bail Application No.10999/2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The disposal of appeal will take its own time. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this is a fit case to enlarge the appellant- accused on bail. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellant-accused Jitendra @ Jeetu S/o Rampal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would [2025:RJ-JP:27439] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1188/2025] execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 13.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellant accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellant will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 9. In case, the applicant has violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /09