[2025:RJ-JP:38069-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 499/2025 in D. B. Criminal Appeal 324/2024 Shriram Son Of Murari, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Singor Kalan Police Station Behrawnda Kalan District Sawai Madhopur (At Present Confined In Jail Sawaimadhopur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Additional Government Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 17/09/2025 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 302 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 applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in this matter and has already served the [2025:RJ-JP:38069-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-499/2025] sentence for period of four years. 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 17.01.2025. The said order reads, inter alia, as follows: “1. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is informed by learned Addl. G.A. that complainant/victim has been intimated about filing of the present application for suspension of sentence as well as criminal appeal. Despite intimation, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that accused- applicant has remained in custody for a period of three & half years. It is contended that the marriage continued for eight years and there was no evidence of any cruelty. It is also contended that the accused- pplicant was suffering from Psychosis NOS and an application was moved before the trial Court and the proceedings were stalled till he became fit to understand the proceedings. 5. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that the accused-applicant has stabbed his wife with a scissor and there were two injuries caused on the neck. The shirt of the accused-applicant was found stained with the human blood which shows that he was present at the time of occurrence and blood group found on the shirt was also matching with that of the deceased. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. Considering the evidence on record, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 8. [2025:RJ-JP:38069-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-499/2025] 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 17.01.2025, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/6