[2025:RJ-JP:17684] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 704/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.849/2025 Mukesh Kumar Son Of Natthi Ram, Resident Of Khohrikhurd Police Station Tapukada District Alwar Rajasthan (Accused Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, senior advocate with Mr. Ayush Goyal and Mr. Lucky Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Jain Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Mukesh Kumar Son Of Natthi Ram aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2025 in Sessions Case No.84/2011 (13/2008) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 304 (Part-I) IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned senior advocate for the appellant while referring evidence of PW-1 Dr. mangtu Ram Choudhary has submitted that cause of death of deceased was cardiopulmonary arrest and same [2025:RJ-JP:17684] (2 of 4) [SOSA-704/2025] is not result of any injuries on testicles. He further submitted that learned trial court has referred histopathology report Ex.P41, FSL report Ex.P-7 and PMR report Ex.P-6 but despite the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Mangtu Ram Choudhary, trial court has committed error while convicting appellant under Part-I of Section 304 IPC. He also referred the evidence on record and submitted that accused party is in possession over the suit property and same is admitted fact on the record but the trial court has ignored the material which clearly indicated that complainant party was aggressor and they have assaulted the accused party. He also referred the contradictions and discrepancies in the instant case and submitted that all these were ignored by the trial court while recording conviction against appellant Mukesh Kumar. He also referred the record of the case and submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and there is no criminal antecedents against appellant, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that cause of death of deceased was result of squeezing of testicles by accused and same is evident from discharge of semen from deceased. He also referred the statement of witnesses and submitted that all have supported the case of prosecution. It has been established that it was squeezing of testicles which resulted into psychogenic shock. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:17684] (3 of 4) [SOSA-704/2025] 5. On the basis of report dated 24.10.2007 submitted by PW-4 Ishab, FIR No.337/2007 was registered at P.S. Tapukada Dist. Alwar and after investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 IPC was filed against seven accused including present appellant. Seven accused have faced trial before the trial court. The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not filed any defence evidence though exhibited 22 documents in defence. Accused Mukesh was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 304 (Part-I) IPC but other accused were convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 323 IPC. All accused have filed an appeal before this Court but SOS was filed on behalf of Mukesh Kumar. 6. A perusal of evidence suggest that the evidence was led about dispute between the parties. The accused was on bail during trial and only after conviction, he was taken into custody. We have gone through the evidence on record particularly of PW-1 as referred by learned senior advocate for appellant. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of this case, therefore it is appropriate to release appellant on bail. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused-Mukesh Kumar Son Of Natthi Ram is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17684] (4 of 4) [SOSA-704/2025] court on 05.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 8. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /34