[2025:RJ-JP:18806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 820/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.288/2025 Mahendra Singh Son Of Shri Parbhiti, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Adda Police Station Sewar District Bharatpur (Presently Accused Appellant Are Confined In District Jail Bharatpur) ----Appellant-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 361/2025 Dharmendra Singh Son Of Pratap Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor and Ors. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Ravindra Mavliya, Mr. Lokendra Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Goyal and Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG Mr. Ashwin Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/05/2025 1. The instant suspension of sentence application is preferred by the appellant-applicant-Mahendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) in pending appeal filed aggrieved from [2025:RJ-JP:18806] (2 of 6) [SOSA-820/2025] judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.32/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur, whereby this appellant accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 324/149, 307 and 307/149 of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to the present appellant is seven years under Section 307 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring order dated 19.12.2017 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17299/2017 submits that the appellant accused who is more than 65 years of age was released on bail by this Hon’ble Court and he remain on bail during trial and did not misuse liberty granted to him. He further referred para No.47 of the impugned judgment and submitted that this appellant accused was convicted with aid of Section 149 IPC which indicate that no direct attribution of any assault or injury alleged against the present appellant. He further referred the statement of injured PW-1 Pratap Singh, PW-2 Dharmendra Singh, PW-6 Monan Dai and PW-9 Pushpendra Singh and submitted that the complainant party were aggressors and they were came on field of accused for assault. He further referred FIR and submitted that even complainant has named 26 persons for involvement in the incident but after investigation police has filed chargesheet against 7 persons. He further submitted that even site plan Ex.P-3 clearly indicate that the place of incident was field of accused and the complainant party were aggressors. He further referred statement of Investigating Officer PW-13 and PW- 21 and submitted that the assault was not premeditated; rather, [2025:RJ-JP:18806] (3 of 6) [SOSA-820/2025] on sudden provocation, the scuffle started between the parties. He further referred the investigation and submitted that Lakhan and Pratap upon whom specific allegations were made by injured were not arrayed as an accused. He referred the cross-examination of injured and submitted that this is a case of over implication of individuals not involved in incident. He further referred the statement of PW-2 Dr. Sanjay and submitted that the opinion of Dr. Sanjay about nature of injury clearly indicate that the injuries were not found as dangerous to life. He further submits that the trial Court has convicted the appellant accused only on omnibus allegation and the injuries suffered by PW-1 Pratap Singh and PW- 9 Pushpendra Singh were not dangerous to life and after treatment these injuries were healed. He also submits that no specific attribution or allegation for causing deadly assault upon Pushpendra Singh and Pratap Singh is established from the evidence of prosecution, therefore, the case of present appellant is identical with case of Inder who was released on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench on 03.03.2025 with four other accused persons. At last, he submits that the trial Court has ignored the material contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and these discrepancies were sufficient to dent the case of prosecution. He submits that the disposal of appeal will take its own time and the appellant accused was awarded a fixed term sentence. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:18806] (4 of 6) [SOSA-820/2025] 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has referred statement of PW-1 and submitted that the impact of injury was mentioned by the trial Court and same can be considered by this Hon’ble Court. He further referred the injury report of PW-1 and PW-9 and statement of PW-22 recorded on two occasions and submitted that the trial Court has taken note of conduct of accused party wherein initially they have opposed the summoning of treating doctor of Fortis Hospital. He also submits that after securing SOS orders for five persons, the present appellant accused has preferred sixth suspension of sentence application and after this suspension of sentence application, another accused Kaluwa @ Shyam Singh will file suspension of sentence application. He submits that PW-1 is a retired policeman and PW-9 is a Clerk in a Government Department and the accused party have assaulted with premeditated plan. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On basis of Ex.P-1 submitted by PW-2 Dhermendra on 11.06.2017 FIR No.254/2017 was registered at Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 and 379 of IPC. After investigation, Police has filed charge-sheet against 7 persons. After framing charge, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The accused appellant were examined under Section 313 CrPC but they have not submitted any defence evidence. Seven documents were exhibited in defence. Learned trial Court has convicted all seven persons and the maximum sentence awarded is seven years. [2025:RJ-JP:18806] (5 of 6) [SOSA-820/2025] 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court has already allowed application of suspension of sentence of Inder, Jagdish, Radha, Sarla and Basmati on 03.03.2025. The instant suspension of sentence application is preferred on 16.04.2025. 8. We have gone through the statement of PW-1 Pratap Singh, who is retired ASI of Police but he never remained posted in field rather he worked in Police Training Institutes. Another injured is PW-9 Pushpendra Singh and we have gone through the statement of PW-9 Pushpendra Singh, who is said to be working as Clerk in Maha Narega (Government Office). Both PW-1 Pratap Singh and PW-9 Pushpendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and both were treated at Fortis Hospital. The evidence of PW-22 Dr. Sanjay Choudhary was reproduced by learned trial Court in para 47 and we have considered the statement of PW-22 along with ocular evidence of PW-1 Pratap Singh and PW-9 Pushpendra Singh. the injuries sustained by PW-1 Pratap Singh and PW-9 Pushpendra Singh were assigned to Kalua @ Shyam Singh and Mahendra. The grievous injuries as sustained by both the injured indicate that both were assaulted with rod or a blunt object. 9. This appellant accused was released on bail during trial in pursuant to order dated 19.12.2017 and now he is in custody since 20.01.2025. The trial Court has convicted Mahendra and Kalua @ Shayam under Section 307 IPC and not with aid of Section 149 IPC. Here in this case, looking to injury report and injures sustained by PW-1 and PW-9, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case wherein the appellant accused be released on [2025:RJ-JP:18806] (6 of 6) [SOSA-820/2025] bail on the ground that other five accused persons were released by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application preferred by the present appellant accused Mahendra Singh is hereby dismissed. IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No.361/2025:- 1. List along with S.B. Criminal Appeal No.288/2025 in the month of August, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/29-30