[2026:RJ-JP:33105-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1007/2025 CNR: RJHC020431802025 | URN: SOSA / 1947U / 2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.224/2024 Rekha Devi W/o Ramchandra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Lamodo Ki Dhani, Tan Khori Police Station Shahpura District Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Dhruv Atri for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 19/08/2026 This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”) along with the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Shahpura, District Jaipur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgments dated 13.05.2024 and 15.05.2024 respectively passed in Sessions Case No.61/21, (04/21) as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:33105-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1007/2025] 1. Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 2. Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC:- Seven years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicant submits she has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that there is no evidence of last seen and recovery of incriminating material at her instance is also doubtful. He, therefore, prays that the suspension of sentence application be allowed. Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application. Heard. Considered. The learned trial Court has, vide its judgment dated 13.05.2024, recorded conviction of the applicant under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution testimony including that of Ms. Ravina Gurjar (PW13) aged about 15 years, Neetu was last seen in the company of the applicant. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P18), there were marks of antemortem injuries on her body and her death was unnatural being on account of asphyxia. Her dead body was recovered concealed in a jute sack with its mouth duly tied with a torn piece of cloth hidden in a hay stake on the disclosure statement of the applicant. Further, at her instance, the [2026:RJ-JP:33105-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1007/2025] remains of the torn piece of the cloth were also recovered from her house. Their Lordships have, in the case of Rajesh Upadhayay Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.: 2025 INSC 1468, held that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of prosecution. It was further held that the presumption of innocence of the accused, which is a principle applied in criminal jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue. It was observed that the dictum that the benefit of suspension of sentence, if at all to be granted in a case involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, ought to be granted only in exceptional and unusual cases, as is well settled by a catena of judgments. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, in view of the evidence available on record, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, we are not inclined to allow the present application for suspension of sentence. The same is dismissed accordingly. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 30/Arun