[2026:RJ-JP:2614-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 1986/2025 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No.389/2024 Monu S/o Narottam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Moondli Bheruji, Police Station Seeswali, District Baran (Raj.) (At present confined in District Jail, Baran) ----Accused-Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta with Mr. Sarwat Alam, Mr. Ashutosh Naruka and Mr. Gorang Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram 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 District and Sessions Judge, Baran (Raj.) (for short, ‘trial Court’) vide judgment dated 15.10.2024 as under: 1. Under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, three months additional imprisonment. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Inviting attention of this Court [2026:RJ-JP:2614-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1986/2025] towards the written report (Ex.P/1) dated 29.08.2022 submitted by Smt. Kamlesh (PW-1)-wife of the deceased, he submitted that she has stated therein that she did not witness the incident rather, when she reached the scene of crime, the accused-person flee. He contends that although, in her deposition she claims to have seen the accused including the applicant assaulting the deceased but, from her cross-examination, the claim is not substantiated. Learned counsel further submits that the testimony of another eye witness Sh. Ramavtar (PW-3)-(a chance witness), also reflects that neither he nor, Smt. Kamlesh has seen the accused assaulting the deceased. He contended that Sh. Ramavtar has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that when he reached near "Dhobio Ki Gali" in Mundli village, he met with her sister-in-law Smt. Kamlesh who was crying and apprised that his brother-in-law Radheshyam was hacked in the field. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that walking distance from "Dhobio Ki Gali" to the scene of crime was of 15 minutes rendering it impossible to have witnessed the incident as claimed. Learned counsel also contended that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from him, he is in custody for a period of about three years and four months, he has no criminal antecedents, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and prays for suspension of sentence awarded to him. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. As per the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024, there are two eye witnesses namely Smt. Kamlesh (PW-1) and Sh. Ramavtar (PW-3). Although, in her written report (Ex.P/1), Smt. [2026:RJ-JP:2614-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1986/2025] Kamlesh did not claim to have seen the incident, but, it was so claimed in her examination-in-chief. However, in her cross- examination, she has stated that when she was informed by two shepherds that her husband was being assaulted by the accused including the applicant, she was about 100 feet away from the scene of crime and after covering the distance of about 15-20 feet, she met Ramavtar. However, Sh. Ramavtar has stated that he met Smt. Kamlesh in Mundli village near "Dhobio ki gali" whereupon, she informed that the deceased was hacked. During his cross-examination, he has stated that walking distance from "Dhobio ki gali" to the scene of crime was of 15 minutes. In view of the material contradictions in their statement, we are not, prima facie, convinced that they have witnessed the applicant inflicting injury to the deceased. Further, there is no recovery of any inflicting material at his instance, he has remained in custody for a period of about three years and four months and there is no likelihood of the early hearing of the appeal. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we deem it just and proper to allow the application filed by him. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. The substantive sentence awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15.10.2024 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal provided he furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on or before 20.02.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeal and subject to following conditions: [2026:RJ-JP:2614-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1986/2025] 1. That he will appear before the learned trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the learned trial Court as well as to counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform their learned Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(es), they will give in writing their changed address to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the case in the trial Court. In case, the said accused-applicant does not appear before the learned trial Court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J GARIMA /35