[2025:RJ-JP:18990] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 391/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 488/2025 Bhupendra Singh @ Nadya S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 33 Years, (Presently Aged About 43 Years) R/o Mala Devi Mohalla, Chomukha Bazar, Baran Police Station Kotwali District Braan (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal with Ms. Saroj SIngh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 05/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Bhupendra Singh @ Nadya S/o Bhanwar Singh in appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2024 in Sessions Case No.37/2014 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Baran whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Section 394/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is innocent person and he was false implicated. He further submitted that in the instant case [2025:RJ-JP:18990] (2 of 5) [SOSA-391/2025] complainant has registered a report against unnamed persons but during investigation when this appellant was arrested, test identification parade was conducted. He referred the statement of PW-1 Ram Prakash and submitted that the admission of PW-2 clearly indicated that accused was identified at the police station prior to test identification parade. He further submitted that PW-2 was not knowing accused but accused was shown to PW-2 before the process of identification of accused (TIP). He also submitted that as per complainant ₹1700 were robbed from him and a description mentioned by him indicate that there were three currency notes of ₹500/- and two currency notes of ₹100/- each but recovery memo indicated that four currency notes of ₹100/- were recovered. He also referred the recovery memo and submitted that there is no identification of recovered mobile. He further referred the statement of recovery witness, who is policeman and submitted that his evidence is contradictory and no independent witness has supported the recovery. He further submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the instant case only due to his criminal background. He further referred cross- examination of other witnesses and submitted that co-accused has already expired. At last, he submitted that accused was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate along with intimation slip to complainant and report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:18990] (3 of 5) [SOSA-391/2025] 5. On the basis of report dated 18.05.2014 about incident of 17.05.2014 FIR No.300/2014 under Section 394/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Baran and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Bhupendra and Dinesh under Section 394/34 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After framing of charge, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. On death of co-accused Dinesh, proceedings were dropped against him. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has not submitted any defence evidence. The case rests upon sole testimony of PW-2 Ram Prakash and he registered report Ex.P2 against unknown persons. It is also evident from evidence of PW-2 that during test identification parade, he identified appellant and Dinesh. The admission indicated that his signatures on Ex.P-4 and 5 were obtained at police station. The admission also indicated that both accused were not known to him and names were told by police. The admission also indicated that at the time of report, both accused were shown to him. 6. The identification parade was conducted by PW-8 Dilip Singh and this identification parade was conducted on 27.05.2014 at Jail, Baran. A perusal of record indicated that FIR was registered at 17.30 hrs on 18.05.2014 and first investigation was conducted by PW-6 Mahendra Singh who prepared site plan Ex.P-1 when he found that matter pertains to SC/ST (POA) Act then he returned the investigation. Thereafter this investigation was conducted by Laluram, Dy.SP. PW-7 Kaluram has registered FIR on the basis of Ex.P2 and handed over investigation to Mahendra and Laluram. PW-7 has also filed charge-sheet. As per prosecution, Laluram (IO) was not examined by prosecution. The material on record [2025:RJ-JP:18990] (4 of 5) [SOSA-391/2025] suggest that appellant was arrested on 24.05.2014 in the instant case. 7. Herein this case, FIR was registered on 18.05.2014 for incident of 17.05.2014 whereas present appellant was arrested on 24.05.2014. Considering these dates,it is not possible for police to show accused to complainant on 18.05.2014 when complainant has registered the case. Similarly Ex.P-4 and 5 were prepared when test identification parade was conducted when accused was in jail and same is proved by PW-8, who is retired Tehsildar. Moreover the report Ex.P-4 and 5 is also signed by Jailer of District Jail, Baran. In view of aforesaid, the admission of PW-2 are not as per record and same cannot be read in favour of appellant. We have considered discrepancies about recovery and also cross-examination of PW-6 and PW-2 but same is not sufficient to presume that a false case has been prepared against appellant. 8. Herein this case, 29 criminal cases were registered against appellant. Instant case was registered on 18.05.2014 and after present incident, 7 more criminal cases were registered against this appellant. Out of 29 cases, appellant was acquitted in seven cases. In 12 cases, accused was convicted. Five cases were disposed of on the basis of compromise. In one case, there is uncertainty about disposal. More than 3 cases are pending. 9. Having considered the criminal background against the appellant, it is not appropriate to release appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, SOS application preferred by appellant- Bhupendra Singh @ Nadya S/o Bhanwar Singh is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:18990] (5 of 5) [SOSA-391/2025] 11. Misc. application stands disposed of. 12. List criminal appeal for hearing in November, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /22