[2025:RJ-JP:36689-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 449/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.284/2023 Mukhram Yadav S/o Shri Badriprasad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Choriya Ki Dhani Village Kiradoda Post Pragpura Police Station Paragpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Accused In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 2/283, N.e.b. Vistar Yojna Transport Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Rahul Tiwari, for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/09/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused- applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he is in custody for last more than four years. He further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:36689-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-449/2025] sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused- applicant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023, which reads as under:- “1. It is informed by learned Additional Government Advocate that victim has been intimated about filing of the appeal and suspension of sentence application. 2. Report in this regard is taken on record. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim, despite information. 4. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 5. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. It is also contended that the applicant was on bail during trial. It is further contended that the charge was amended at a later stage without giving opportunity to the applicant. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that the deceased died within two months of her marriage and she has sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. 8. We have considered the contentions. 9. Considering the fact that the deceased died within two months of the marriage [2025:RJ-JP:36689-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-449/2025] and she has sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of the body; no explanation has been put forth by the applicant with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased prior to her death and there was demand of dowry; we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 10. The application for suspension of sentence is accordingly dismissed.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the accused-applicant and also considering the fact that since the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was dismissed on merits and thereafter except period of custody, there is no change in circumstances, in our considered view, no case is made out to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /27