[2026:RJ-JP:6892] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 3rd Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 219/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1707/2025 Yusuf Khan S/o Abdul Majeed, Aged About 25 Years, R/o New Basti Lohakhan, Tempo Stand, Ajmer. (At Present The Accused Appellant Is Confined In The District Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Natawaria Mr. Bhaskar Sharma Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/02/2026 1. The instant 3rd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Yusuf Khan S/o Abdul Majeed in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2025 in Sessions Case No.10/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 307, 341/34, 323/34, 452/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. The first S.O.S. of appellant was dismissed on 01.08.2025, whereas the second S.O.S. was dismissed on merits on 10.10.2025. This Court has allowed S.O.S. application of Ali [2026:RJ-JP:6892] (2 of 5) [SOSA-219/2026] Mohammed on 01.08.2025 and has also allowed S.O.S. application of Majid Khan and Satar Khan on 03.07.2025 in S.O.S. Application No. 1261/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per oral evidence of injured PW-2 there were two blows by appellant, but medical evidence has suggested that there was only one knife blow and this is not a case of aggravated assault by appellant. He further referred statement of PW-19 Dr. Mata Deen Meena and PW-20 Dr. U.S. Parihar and submitted that as per Exhibit P-10, the injury sustained by injured was found as simple in nature, but only due to surgical note the injury was opined as dangerous and ultimately the appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC. He further referred the knife used in the incident and submitted that it was a simple knife used in kitchen to chop vegetables and not a case of premeditated assault. He further referred the evidence of prosecution and submitted that even the knife was not sent for FSL examination. He also referred cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-18 and further pointed out the admissions and [2026:RJ-JP:6892] (3 of 5) [SOSA-219/2026] discrepancies in the statement about the incident. At last he submitted that appellant is facing trial since 2013 and he is having a family with two young daughters. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. We have already considered the S.O.S. application on merits and while considering the second S.O.S. on 10.10.2025, we have observed as under: "7. On the basis of report dated 28.08.2013 lodged by complainant PW-3 Noor Mohammad, F.I.R. No. 367/2013 was registered at PS Civil Lines, Ajmer. After investigation, police has filed a charge sheet against Yusuf and Ali under Sections 341, 323, 452, and 307 IPC. Two more accused were added under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. The accused were examined under section 313 CrPC and the accused have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited 9 documents. 8. This Court has allowed SOS application of Majeed Khan and Sattar Khan on 03.07.2025 as they were added as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and not forwarded by police to face trial, whereas accused Ali Mohammad was granted bail by this Court on 01.08.2025 as he has been found guilty under Section 307/34 IPC. Present applicant Yusuf Khan is main accused and he has been found [2026:RJ-JP:6892] (4 of 5) [SOSA-219/2026] guilty under Section 307 IPC. The recovery of knife is from possession of present applicant 9. The surgical note Ex.P18 clearly reflected that after injury when abdomen was opened then 3 ltr. of clotted blood was found in peritoneal cavity, which has been removed and the stabbed track clearly indicate that it was as deep 3-4x2 cm with vein forced deep. 10. The injury itself indicate the penetrative injury, which was caused by present applicant- accused by sharp edged weapon. The allegation is upon present applicant-accused and not upon anybody else, therefore, considering the material available on record, this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail." 8. We have considered statement of PW-19, in particular his cross-examination, and also surgical note as prepared by PW-20 and his cross-examination. We have also taken note of cross-examination of PW-2 injured. If there is any discrepancy in ocular evidence viz-a-viz medical evidence, then the same can be a ground which may be considered at the time of final consideration of the appeal, but the trial court after considering the material available on record has drawn a conclusion that present appellant is the accused, who stabbed with knife on a vital part of injured. 9. The appellant is in custody for more than nine months and fourteen days against maximum sentence of seven years. The material on record indicated that total three criminal cases were registered against the appellant and out of which two were already disposed of. Though complainant Vahiden [2026:RJ-JP:6892] (5 of 5) [SOSA-219/2026] has registered a complaint about intimidation, after release of other accused on bail, but the same is not ground to deny relief to appellant. 10. We have considered almost ground while considering S.O.S. application. The period of custody is not sufficient to release appellant on bail and the family circumstances are also not a ground to release appellant on bail. 11. Accordingly, the S.O.S. application preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application stands disposed of. 13. List appeal for hearing in April, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /27