[2025:RJ-JP:856-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2122/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.413/2024 Manju Ojha Wife Of Late Rakesh Kumar Ojha Daughter Of Shri Hari Shankar Ojha, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 164-A, Teeja Nagar, Sabrampura, Police Station Kalwar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Presently Confined In Mahila Jail Jaipur ----Accused-Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1724/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.322/2024 Beeresh Ojha @ Soni Ojha S/o Ramsharan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Plot No. E-164, Teeja Nagar-I, Sabrampura Police Station Kalwar District Jaipur (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused-Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal Mr. Kapil Gupta For State For Complainant/Victim : : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Addl. GA-cum- AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. None Present [2025:RJ-JP:856-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2122/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 07/01/2025 1. Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-Manju Ojha that she has remained in custody for a period of about three years and eight months. Initially, report was lodged with regard to the deceased committing suicide and after six days, FIR was lodged alleging commission of offence of murder. It is also contended that present accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. From perusal of the statement of the doctor, it is evident that the doctor was not sure whether it is a case of suicide or murder. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-Beeresh Ojha that prosecution has not established the presence of Beeresh Ojha at the time of the alleged offence. It is also contended that the call details do not point towards the commission of offence. It is further contended that no one has seen the accused-applicant entering the house or exiting the house on 20.04.2021. It is contended that the only evidence adduced by the prosecution is PW-5, who is a child witness, who has stated that she along with her brother and parents were at home. She has not specifically stated that present accused-applicant was also present at home of the deceased on 20.04.2021. It is also contended that from the [2025:RJ-JP:856-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2122/2024] statement of doctor-PW-1, it is not established that it is a case of strangulation. It is further contended that accused-applicant was granted bail during trial after considering the statement of PW-5. 5. Despite intimation, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim. 6. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that statement of PW-5 point towards the involvement of both the accused-applicants in the commission of offence. It is also contended that the accused-applicant refused to give their voice samples, hence, the Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the accused-applicants. It is also contended that there is specific finding about strangulation in the postmortem report. It is also contended that call details point towards the involvement of both the accused-applicants in the alleged offence. It is contended that the fact that applicant-Manju Ojha was present at the house is established from the statement of PW-5 and she has tried to make it a case of suicide. Presumption under Section 106 I.P.C. has to be drawn against applicant-Manju Ojha. 7. We have considered the contentions. 8. Considering the statement of P.W.-5, who has specifically stated that her father was shouting for help and at the relevant time both the accused-applicants were inside the room; PW-5 is a young child aged eleven years, her statement inspires confidence; call details also point towards the involvement of the accused- [2025:RJ-JP:856-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2122/2024] applicants and their refusal to give voice samples also point towards their guilt; from the postmortem report also, it is evident that it is a case of strangulation, we are not inclined to entertain these applications for suspension of sentence. 9. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Applications are accordingly, dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J DAKSH/38-39