[2025:RJ-JP:16483] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 88/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100/2025 Smt. Sita Wife Of Khemraj, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Sangrampura Police Station Dooni District Tonk At Present Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Ms. Vaishnavi & Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/04/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by petitioner accused Smt. Sita in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2024 in sessions case no. 58/2010 (16/2013) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Camp Deoli, District Tonk whereby petitioner Sita was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 years with fine of ₹25,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring Ex. P/42 Chak FIR has submitted that after the incident in first version name of present petitioner was not mentioned as perpetrator. He further submits that in absence of allegation in FIR the petitioner accused [2025:RJ-JP:16483] (2 of 4) [SOSA-88/2025] is innocent and she was falsely implicated. He further submitted that after making improvement in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first time the name of present petitioner was involved as the person who assaulted deceased Mani Bai. He further referred statement of PW-9 and PW-10 both doctors and submits that as per them the deceased has sustained only one injury and the attribution was made upon Lal Chand. He further submitted that deceased and present petitioner were neighbours and at the most presence of present petitioner is natural but there is no evidence of meeting of mind to assault deceased Mani Bai. He further referred the cross-examination of investigating officers PW-18, PW-20, PW-30 and submitted that as per their statement present petitioner is not involved in inflicting any injury upon deceased. He also referred the evidence on record and also the findings of trial court and submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while convicting present petitioner who was not involved in the incident in any manner. At last, he submitted that the petitioner is a female and she was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a reply has already been filed on record and as per reply the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report submitted by Ashok Kumar on 27.05.2010 about assault by Khemraj, Lal Chand, Pappu, Sita, Priyanka, Suraj Karan, Jagannath, Dhapu upon her mother Mani [2025:RJ-JP:16483] (3 of 4) [SOSA-88/2025] FIR no. 85/2010 under Sections 143, 452, 307, 341 and 323 IPC was registered. During investigation Mani Devi has expired and ultimately, charge-sheet has been filed against Khemraj, Jagannath, Pappu, Lal Chand, Dhapu, Priyanka, Sita and a Juvenile under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 IPC. During trial one of the accused Priyanka was found as juvenile so her matter was sent to Children Court. During trial, Jagannath and Dhapu have expired. After framing charge 31 witnesses were examined and 50 documents were exhibited by prosecution. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and four witnesses were examined in defence and nine documents were exhibited. Total 12 articles were exhibited before the trial court. Learned trial court has acquitted Pappu but convicted Lal Chand and Sita under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and Khemraj under Section 341 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to present petitioner is 10 years. The petitioner accused was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 22.07.2011 in bail application no. 6086/2011 and she remained on bail during trial. The petitioner accused is a female and per site plan Ex. P/3 both the parties are neighbours. We have perused the PMR report Ex. P/22 and also considered seizure memo Ex. P/38 whereby one axe (kulhadi) was recovered at the instance of petitioner. In cross-examination, PW- 9 Dr. Ram Kishore Saini has admitted that as per PMR there was only one injury between head and nose. We have also perused the statement of PW-10 Dr. Jaswant Choudhary. Also considered the statement of investigating officers. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be [2025:RJ-JP:16483] (4 of 4) [SOSA-88/2025] enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Smt. Sita Wife Of Khemraj is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that she 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 her appearance in this court on 29.07.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, she will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that she is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That she 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, she will give in writing her 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. 7. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /35