[2025:RJ-JP:41440-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1518/2025 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.110/2023 Rohitash Son Of Ratiram, Resident Of Goonti Police Station Behror, District Alwar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner ) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umashanker Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Additional Government Advocate. Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Additional Government Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/10/2025 1. The matter is heard on the second application seeking suspension of sentence. 2. Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant- accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC. 3. Counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that accused-applicant is in judicial custody. Counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:41440-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1518/2025] applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in this matter and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. It is accordingly prayed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant-accused be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 4. This Court had previously adjudicated upon and dismissed the first application for suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant-accused by a reasoned order dated 13.07.2023. The said order reads, inter alia, as follows: “1. Accused-appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that appellant is father- n-law of deceased. It is also contended that appellant was on bail during trial. Disposal of appeal is bound to take time. 4. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate and counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that deceased died within two years of her marriage. Her body was thrown in a different district in a bag with head inside. It is also contended that information about the missing person was given after disposing of the body. As per post mortem report, offence was committed between 20.06.2015 to 22.06.2015. It is further contended that there is evidence with regard to demand of dowry against her father-in-law. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Taking note of the fact that deceased died within two months of her marriage, that there is allegation of demand of dowry against father-in-law, that her body was thrown in a different district in a bag with head inside and that no missing person report was filed by the appellant when the deceased went missing and was filed after disposing of the body, we are not inclined to entertain [2025:RJ-JP:41440-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1518/2025] the present application for suspension of sentence. 7. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application is accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the application seeking suspension of sentence. 6. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the first application seeking suspension of sentence having been dismissed on merits, and in the absence of any material change in circumstances, except for the additional duration of incarceration undergone by the applicant-accused, no justifiable ground has been made out warranting a different conclusion at this stage. 7. Consequently, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 13.07.2023, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/10