[2025:RJ-JP:2368] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 30/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1595/2024 Prakash S/o Shri Raghuveer, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kalwan Resident Of Police Station Manpur District Dausa (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Shyalawas Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma Mr. Shrikant Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/01/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by appellant-accused Prakash in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2024 in Sessions Case No. 17/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikrai, District Dausa. 2. First SOS application of present appellant was dismissed as withdrawn. An interim SOS was allowed on 12.11.2024 and appellant-accused Prakash was allowed for interim bail from 01.12.2024 to 07.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent and he was falsely implicated by police. He further [2025:RJ-JP:2368] (2 of 4) [SOSA-30/2025] submits that main accused is Pintu and he has already been released on bail by this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that out of the total, 14 accused were found out guilty by the Trial Court and 13 were already released on bail by this Hon’ble Court while allowing suspension of sentence application. He further referred the cross-examination of PW2 (Rajendra Singh) complainant injured and submitted that his evidence is not matching with evidence of PW7 (Dr. Gajraj Singh). He further submitted that there was no injury on skull of PW2 (Rajendra Singh) and as per statement of PW-3 (Balbir Singh), Pintu was main accused, who assaulted the victim with deadly weapon. He specifically submitted that complainant has encroached upon land of Panchayat and the villagers have protested against the encroachment made by complainant. He also referred the statement of PW17-Santram (Investigating Officer) and submitted that the disputed property was encroached by complainant and there was no involvement of present appellant. Learned counsel has further referred to the discrepancies and material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the contradictions and also the fact that there was no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. 4. Aforementioned contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He has submitted that present appellant-accused was the main person, who was responsible for unlawful assembly which assaulted the complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:2368] (3 of 4) [SOSA-30/2025] 6. Complainant Bhanu Pratap Singh has filed a report for assault on the night of 17.01.2021 on his crusher and mines. The report indicates that the crowd was led by present-appellant. On basis of this report FIR No. 28/2021 was registered at P.S. Manpur, District Dausa and after investigation charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 506, 341, 323, 321, 427, 458, 459 and 120B was filed. Total 14 accused face trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikrai, District Dausa and after full trial accused-Pintu was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 336, 504, 506, 427, 458, 459 and 120B, but other 13 accused including present-appellant Prakash were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 336, 504, 506, 427, 458, 459 and 120B IPC. The maximum punishment awarded was rigorous imprisonment of 10 years under Section 459 IPC. 7. This Court while considering SOS application No. 1197/2024 and 1198/2024 has granted SOS to 13 accused including accused- Pintu, but SOS application of present appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.10.2024. 8. Since 18.10.2024, no circumstances have changed except for the period of incarceration. At the time of consideration of SOS on 18.10.2024, entire merits were considered by this Court. 9. We have considered the statement of PW2 (Rajendra Singh), PW3 (Balbir Singh), PW7 (Gajraj Singh) and PW17 (Santram) as referred by learned counsel for appellant. A perusal of report registered by complainant and also the statement clearly indicate that an unruly mob, led by present appellant attacked around 09.30 PM on 17.01.2021 at the premises of complainant. Learned [2025:RJ-JP:2368] (4 of 4) [SOSA-30/2025] Trial Court after considering a pre-meditated attack on the basis of evidence available on record has convicted the accused under Section 459 of IPC. We have gone through injury report of Rajendra Singh (PW2) as referred by the counsel for appellant. 10. Though the attribution was upon Pintu, who was already released on bail after allowing his SOS but the entire incident was a result of a leader-ship of present appellant. A fact is apparent on record that present appellant is brother of village Sarpanch and appellant led the unruly mob which indulged in assault on complainant and injured. The unruly mob attached the premises and vandalized the premises of a business establishment. 11. Looking to role and involvement of present appellant on the basis of evidence available on record, I am of considered view that appellant is not entitled to be released on the basis of grounds as mentioned by the counsel for appellant. 12. In view of aforesaid SOS application is preferred by present appellant-accused is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /02