[2025:RJ-JP:35657] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2257/2024 Mahendra S/o Ramkuwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chiplata, Police Station Thoi, District Neemkathana (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Central Jail Bikaner) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/09/2025 1. This application has been filed by the accused- appellant for suspension of sentence awarded to him by order dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in Sessions Case No.30/2014 whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month, one year, three years and ten years imprisonment respectively with default stipulation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely roped in the [2025:RJ-JP:35657] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2257/2024] controversy. He contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Cour is illegal, perverse and against the material available on record. His submission is that the injury caused to injured Budhram is never caused by the appellant but it was caused due to fall from the motor cycle when he was running after committing rape with the sister of the appellant but the learned trial Court without considering the above factual aspect passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He contended that there are material contradictions regarding the commission of alleged offence. As per statement of PW8 injured Budhram, it is the appellant who has attacked with wood stick while the Investigating Officer has recovered dantli which reflects falsehood of the prosecution story. Even the recovered article dantli contains no blood stains. He submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail for the last one and half years and disposal of appeal will take time, therefore, during pendency of this appeal, his subsequent sentence may be suspended by allowing this application for suspension of sentence. 4. Per contra, learned Public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that it is evident from the testimony of witnesses recorded before the trial Court that appellant Mahendra has caused injuries to injured Budhram. He further submits that as per medical report, there are nine injuries caused to injured Budhram out of which one is on vital part of the body of injured which is dangerous to life. He further contended that appellant has criminal antecedents of two cases and the other arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding nature of weapon used, contradictions [2025:RJ-JP:35657] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2257/2024] in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and injury caused due to fall from motor cycle are open to be considered while final hearing of the appeal and above factors are not decisive while considering the application for suspension of sentence, hence, the same may be rejected. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor, the gravity of the offence, period of sentence imposed and custody undergone by the appellant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant in exercise of powers under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023. 7. Resultantly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/14