[2026:RJ-JP:2601-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1021/2025 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 225/2025 Parshuram Rajoriya Son Of Ramswaroop Rajoriya, Resident Of Garjeda Police Station Diggi District Tonk At Present Resident Of Pando Ka Mohalla, Kasba Phagi Police Station Phagi District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused/Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siya Ram Sharma Ms. Nisha Shekhawat Ms. Gayatri Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 21/01/2026 The accused-applicant (for short, ‘the applicant’) has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faggi, District-Jaipur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 06.02.2025 as under:- Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/- in default whereof, three months’ additional simple imprisonment. [2026:RJ-JP:2601-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1021/2025] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although, in the written report dated 14.01.2023 (Ex. P1), the complainant Nathulal has stated that he saw the applicant inflicting a hammer blow on head of the deceased-Smt. Saroj-his sister; but, in his cross-examination as PW-2, he has admitted that he did not see the incident and reached there at about half an hour later. He contends that as per the postmortem report, injury is on forehead of the deceased in between eye-brows which is not possible from the hammer. Learned counsel submits that recovery of hammer is rendered doubtful in view of the cross-examination of Shri Rakesh (PW3) who has stated that somebody brought it from the upper floor as also from the cross-examination of Shri Chittar (PW6) wherein, he has stated that the hammer had one feet long wooden handle whereas, as per its recovery memo (Ex. P14), it had iron handle. He further submits that his fingerprints were not found on the hammer. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of Aryan Prajapat (PW1)-son of the deceased, learned counsel submits that he has stated that he was informed by Meghraj-son of his maternal uncle about murder of his mother by his father; but, Shri Meghraj was not produced in the witness-box. He further contends that the PW1 has admitted that his father and his maternal uncle-Nathulal were not to good terms. He, therefore, prays that sentence awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.01.2025 be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. [2026:RJ-JP:2601-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1021/2025] Disbelieving the version in the written report dated 14.01.2023 (Ex. P1) submitted by Shri Nathulal (PW2) that he saw the incident, learned trial Court has held that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. From the testimony of Shri Aryan Prajapat (PW1), 11 years old son of the applicant and the deceased, it is reflected that on the fateful day before the incident, the applicant has taken him alongwith his siblings to Shiv Mandir and after leaving them on its ceiling after closing the temple door, returned. From the prosecution evidence, it is established that the applicant was caught, near his house, i.e., place of incident, by the neighbors wearing a blood-stained T-shirt. The learned trial Court has held that although, in his defence plea, he has stated that the complainant Nathulal has sprinkled red colour on his T-shirt from a pipe but neither, such suggestion was made to Shri Nathulal when he appeared in the witness-box as PW2 nor, any explanation was offered as to why he did so. So far as recovery of hammer, the weapon of offence, is concerned, we do not find, prima facie, substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in view of the fact that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the applicant, the same was recovered vide Ex. P14 which has been proved by its attesting witnesses. As per the FSL report dated 16.05.2024 (Ex. P24), on the T-shirt of the applicant as also on the hammer recovered at his instance, not only human blood was detected; but, female DNA profile was also obtained which, on DNA test, was found to be matching with the source of same female DNA profile obtained from amongst others Ex. Nos. 1(blood smeared ash soil), 2(piece of bone of deceased), 6(chudi piece), 7(jacket button recovered from crime scene), [2026:RJ-JP:2601-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1021/2025] 8(saree of deceased), 9(blouse of deceased), 10(lehanga/petticoat of deceased) and 11(jacket of deceased). Further, the applicant was not on bail during trial. In view of the aforesaid evidence, we are not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence. Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/21