[2025:RJ-JP:14547-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2092/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.119/2024 Nathuram S/o Sitaram Raigar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Chota Naraina Rupangarh, District Ajmer (Confined At Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. Mr. Aman Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 01/04/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he is in custody since 22.07.2020 and during trial, he was not on bail. He further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused-applicant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He further submits that there is contradiction [2025:RJ-JP:14547-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2092/2024] in the statement of witnesses recorded during trial and there is no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, as in the First Information Report the eye witness who is wife of the deceased has not said anything. He further submits that the samples were sent twice to the FSL, however, one entry registered in the malkhana register in this regard. He further submits that there is no DNA report was obtained by the prosecution during investigation and according to statement of eye witnesses, there was difference in description of weapon of offence. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. reported in 1976 (3) SCC 356 and another in the matter of Kartarey and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1976 (1) SCC 172. 4. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that according to statement of wife of deceased PW- 12 (Birdi Devi) recorded during trial she stated that the accused- applicant has caused injury on the chest of deceased (her husband) by using weapon i.e. “Rapi’. He further submits that according to FSL report, blood stains were found on the weapon of offence i.e. Rapi as well as clothes of deceased. He further submits that the accused-applicant was not on bail during trial. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:14547-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2092/2024] 6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as looking to the seriousness of the offence alleged against the accused-applicant and also considering the statement of wife of deceased PW-12 (Birdi Devi) and considering the FSL report Ex.P-23, in our considered view, no case is made out to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /16