[2025:RJ-JP:20031] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 717/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.865/2025 1. Banwarilal S/o Girraj Prasad, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) 2. Jitendra Kumar S/o Damodarlal, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) 3. Naresh Kumar S/o Damodar, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) 4. Kishor Kumar S/o Govind Prasad, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) 5. Mukat S/o Mishrilal, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) 6. Brahmadev S/o Mukat Bihari, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (At Present The Accused Appellants Are Confined In The District Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 740/2025 In [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (2 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] S.B. Criminal Appeal No.895/2025 1. Gopal Prasad Son Of Girraj, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 2. Govind Son Of Tikam Ram, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 3. Tilu Alias Khem Chand Son Of Babulal, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 4. Nandan Alias Devendra Son Of Tikam Ram, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 5. Guddu Son Of Ramesh Chand, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 6. Rajendra Prasad Son Of Girraj Prasad, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur 7. Girdhari Lal Son Of Tikam Ram, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 901/2025 Mukat Bihari Son Of Shri Mishrilal Sharma, ----Petitioner Versus Hari Son Of Panni, Resident Of Village Andhiyari Police Station Uchchain District Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (3 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/05/2025 1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Banwarilal S/o Girraj Prasad, Jitendra Kumar S/o Damodarlal, Naresh Kumar S/o Damodar, Kishor Kumar S/o Govind Prasad, Mukat S/o Mishrilal, Brahmadev S/o Mukat Bihari, Gopal Prasad Son Of Girraj, Govind Son Of Tikam Ram, Tilu Alias Khem Chand Son Of Babulal, Nandan Alias Devendra Son Of Tikam Ram, Guddu Son Of Ramesh Chand, Rajendra Prasad Son Of Girraj Prasad and Girdhari Lal Son Of Tikam Ram in pending appeals filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2025 in Sessions Case No.29/2012 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Bharatpur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 rws 149 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that 14 accused have faced trial and out of which one was died but remaining 13 accused were convicted by the trial court without assigning their role and involvement in the incident. He further submitted that a cross- case was also registered, wherein the trial court has acquitted 8 persons and aggrieved from judgment of acquittal in cross- sessions case No.68/2017 arising out of same incident criminal [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (4 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] appeal No.901/2025 is filed by appellant Mukut Bihari. He further submitted that initially these appellants were charged under Section 447 IPC but the trial court has acquitted them on the ground that there is a land dispute between the parties and revenue suit is pending. He further referred evidence of prosecution and submitted that at the time when these appellants were ploughing, cultivating and cutting the crop, the complainant party has assaulted them which is sufficient to show that complainant was aggressor. He also referred the evidence and submitted that this is a case of free fight wherein the trial court has not assigned injury upon injured to any specific accused and convicted all appellants with aid of Section 149 IPC. He further submitted that as per evidence the incident has taken place on a joint land wherein stay was operating and complainant party have taken law in their hand. He further submitted that no weapon was recovered by IO, during investigation. He further referred the statement of injured Chironja, Revanta, Hari and submitted that all witnesses are interested witnesses. He further referred the medical of accused persons and submitted that prosecution has not explained injuries. He further referred the evidence and prosecution story and submitted that assault by fire arm was assigned to Narayan and none of the appellants were charged for use of fire arm. He further submitted that the injury under Section 307 IPC was assigned to Narayan who was not arrayed as an accused by police. He further submitted that an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and another under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant but both were dismissed and persons who was charged for causing injury under Section 307 IPC was not [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (5 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] brought to face trial. At last, he submitted that all appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the theory of police was not believed by the trial court and this is not a case of free fight rather appellants have assaulted injured complainant party and there were total 9 injured and all of them had supported the case of prosecution. He also submitted that the injuries sustained by injured were found to be grievous and dangerous to life. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of parchabayan of Kailashi Ex.P-7, FIR No.50/2003 was registered at P.S. Ucchain Dist. Bharatpur and after investigation police has filed charge-sheet against 14 persons. During trial, one accused Babulal has expired and proceedings were dropped against him. After framing charge, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they have examined DW-1 Mukut Bihari and exhibited 23 documents. Learned trial court has convicted appellants under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 rws 149 IPC and awarded maximum sentence of 10 years to each of appellant. 6. We have considered the statement of all injured particularly PW-1 Chironja, PW-2 Revanti and PW-8 Hari. Also considered medical opinion of PW-10 Dr. Rupendra and PW-11 Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma. The cross case was registered as FIR No.51/2003 [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (6 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] on 27.03.2003 on the basis of parchabayan of Mukut Bihari and same was registered as sessions case No.68/2017 wherein all accused were acquitted on 25.03.2025. At this stage, we cannot opine about who was aggressor or is it a case of free fight. 7. The appellants were on bail during trial and incident is of March, 2003. The material on record indicated that there is a land dispute between the parties, for which revenue suits are pending. The appeal is already admitted and disposal will take its own time. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, particularly when rival contentions were raised by the parties. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The applications under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. are allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Banwarilal S/o Girraj Prasad, Jitendra Kumar S/o Damodarlal, Naresh Kumar S/o Damodar, Kishor Kumar S/o Govind Prasad, Mukat S/o Mishrilal, Brahmadev S/o Mukat Bihari, Gopal Prasad Son Of Girraj, Govind Son Of Tikam Ram, Tilu Alias Khem Chand Son Of Babulal, Nandan Alias Devendra Son Of Tikam Ram, Guddu Son Of Ramesh Chand, Rajendra Prasad Son Of Girraj Prasad and Girdhari Lal Son Of Tikam Ram 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 his appearance in this court on 22.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:20031] (7 of 7) [SOSA-717/2025] 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. 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. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /29-31