[2025:RJ-JP:43310-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 955/2025 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 213/2025 Deepchand @ Deepu S/o Shri Kishori Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gali No 2 Shakti Nagar Aam Ka Talab Ajmer P.S Alwer Gate District Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Appellant/Accused Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vishlakshi Pareek with Mr. Devanshu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Agarwal, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 29/10/2025 The accused-appellant (for short, ‘the appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases) Ajmer (for short, ‘the trial Court’) vide judgment dated 24.04.2025 as under: 1. Under Section 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default thereof, three months’ additional imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:43310-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-955/2025] 2. Under Section 457/34 IPC: Three months’ imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, one month’s additional imprisonment. 3. Under Section 380/34 IPC: Three months’ imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, one month’s additional imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein, there is no evidence of ‘last seen’ and he has been convicted relying solely on the deposition of S/Shri Deepak Soni (PW-11) and Shiv Ratan (PW-12) wherein, they have stated that he had come to them with co-accused Ram Kumar @ Sahil @ Golu to sell some ornaments belonging to the deceased. She further submits that during trial, he was on bail and never misused his liberty. She, therefore, prays that sentence awarded to the appellant vide judgment impugned dated 24.04.2025 be suspended during pendency of the appeal. Although, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General opposes the prayer but, could not point out any evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged offence except the statement of PW-11 and PW-12 and the recovery pursuant thereto. Heard. Considered. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Prima facie, we do not find any evidence of ‘last seen’ of the appellant in the company of the deceased or with the co-accused whose mobile phone was recovered lying by the side of the body of the deceased. Except the evidence that the appellant came with the co-accused alongwith some gold [2025:RJ-JP:43310-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-955/2025] ornaments belonging to the deceased to sell them, there is no other incriminating evidence available on record connecting the appellant with the alleged offence. In view thereof, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated 24.04.2025. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed. Sentence awarded to the appellant vide judgment dated 24.04.2025 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The appellant shall mark his attendance before the Registrar (Judl.) on 27.11.2025. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/17