[2026:RJ-JP:3190-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2295/2024 In D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 268/2024 Sagir S/o Majid, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Sayadi, Police Station Khijar Saray District Gaya Bihar, Presently Tenant Of Majida Ka Makan Nahari Ka Naka, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused-Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 23/01/2026 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”) alongwith the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 05.07.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.08/2022 as under:- 1. Under Section 341 IPC: One month’s simple imprisonment and fine of ₹500/- in default whereof, ten days’ additional simple imprisonment. [2026:RJ-JP:3190-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2295/2024] 2. Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹20,000/- in default whereof, three months’ additional simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that testimony of the so-called eye-witness Shri Salim Qureshi (PW1) stands falsified from the deposition of Shri Fayyaz Khan (PW13) who has stated that Shri Salim Qureshi has came to his home to take him to the house of the deceased. Inviting attention of this Court towards the inquest memo (Ex. P6) which reflects only one injury on the body of the deceased and the postmortem report of the body of the deceased (Ex. P12) which reflects nine injuries, learned counsel submits that the same are contradictory. He further submits that as per the postmortem report, cause of death is shock due to septicemia as a result of secondary bacterial infection and not on account of injuries. Referring to Ex. P-18, he asserted that body of the deceased was handed over to his son Ameer Khan on 14.01.2022 whereas, the postmortem was conducted on 15.12.2022 which creates a doubt about the prosecution story. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed and the sentence awarded to him be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the judgment impugned dated 05.07.2024 reflects that the learned trial Court has held that from the testimony of Shri Salim Qureshi (PW1)-eye-witness, it is apparent that the applicant has inflicted multiple blows on the body of the [2026:RJ-JP:3190-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2295/2024] deceased with a knife which stands corroborated from the Ex. P12-the postmortem report which reflects nine incised and stab wounds on the body of the deceased. As per the medical opinion, the cause of death was shock due to septicemia as a result of secondary bacterial infection over abdominal injuries which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature by its own. There has been recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the applicant and as per State Forensic Science Laboratory report of DNA examination dated 17.11.2022 (Ex. P19), the DNA profile obtained from the Baniyan (Inner) of the deceased and Paijama of the accused has matched with the male DNA profile obtained from the blood-stains taken from the piece of blood smeared guddari recovered from the scene of crime. It is also reflected that alleles of the male DNA profile obtained from the blood-stains on Baniyan of the deceased are accounted in the mixed DNA profile obtained from the blood-stains detected on the knife recovered at the instance of the applicant. Remaining submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are matter of appreciation at the time of hearing of the appeal as we are not expected to sift and weigh the evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence application. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence to the applicant. Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/9