[2026:RJ-JP:2378-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2400/2025 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal Number 430/2025 1. Dilipsingh S/o Mangusingh, Aged About 21 Year, 2. Govindsingh S/o Chatarsingh, Aged About 25 Years, 3. Sardarsingh S/o Nathusingh, Aged About 28 Years, all R/o Jamuniya Kheda, Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar, (Raj.) (All are at present confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Accused-appellants Versus The State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Gorang Agarwal Mr. S.P.S. Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Goyal, PP with Mr. Vinod Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 20/01/2026 The accused-applicants (for short, ‘the applicants’) have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar (for short, ‘trial Court’) vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 as under: 1. Under Section 147 IPC: Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, one month additional imprisonment. [2026:RJ-JP:2378-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2400/2025] 2. Under Section 341 IPC: One month simple imprisonment. 3. Under Section 323/149 IPC: One year simple imprisonment. 4. Under Section 325/149 IPC: Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default thereof, two months additional imprisonment. 5. Under Section 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default thereof, six months additional imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, inviting attention of this Court towards the injury report of deceased-Lalulal (Ex.- P/26) and also his inquest report (Ex.P/4), would submit that he had received only three injuries including one lacerated wound on occipital region and as per Dr. Ramavtar Degda (PW-21), who has prepared the injury report, except three injuries on the body of the deceased, there was no mark of any other injury, whereas, as per Dr. Bhawesh Bohra (PW-20) who has conducted the autopsy, ten injuries were found on the body of the deceased as is also reflected from the post-mortem report (Ex.P/23). The (Ex.P/23) reflects three injuries on head of the deceased; one lacerated wound on middle of the fronto parietal region, one stitched lacerated wound on left parietal region and one abrasion on left forehead. Learned Senior counsel submits that indisputably, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation till preparation of the injury report and the post- mortem report, did not appear in the witness box depriving the applicants their valuable right of cross-examination. He further submits that although, as per the prosecution case, five accused [2026:RJ-JP:2378-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2400/2025] persons have mercilessly beaten the deceased but, he has received only three injuries on his body out of which, two were found to be simple in nature. Lastly, he submits that they were on bail during trial, have no criminal antecedents, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and prays that the sentence awarded to the accused, vide judgment dated 18.09.2025, is suspended during pendency of the appeal. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. As per the testimony of the injured witnesses, namely Sh. Shyamlal (PW-1) and Smt. Mangibai (PW-11)-son and wife of the deceased respectively, the deceased was seriously beaten by five accused persons including the applicants but, the inquest report (Ex.P/4) as well as the injury report (Ex.P/26) reflect only three injuries on his body; one lacerated wound on occipital region as also on right leg and one abrasion on right hand palm. Dr. Ramavtar Degda (PW-21) has categorically deposed that except the aforesaid three injuries, he found no mark of any other injury. However, the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased (Ex.P/23) reflects ten injuries including one lacerated wound on mid fronto parietal region, a stitched lacerated wound on left parietal region and an abrasion on left forehead region. Indisputably, the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation during the period the inquest report, injury report and the post-mortem report were prepared, was not examined by the prosecution and there is complete absence of an explanation as to variance in the place of injuries and their number in the [2026:RJ-JP:2378-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2400/2025] post-mortem report viz-a-viz the inquest report and the injury report. This omission is rendered of much significance in view of the prosecution case that five accused persons have dealt with multiple blows on the body of the deceased. The applicants were on bail during trial with absence of allegations of its misuse. They do not have any criminal antecedents and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. In the conspectus of the aforesaid analysis, we deem it just and proper to allow the application filed by them. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. The substantive sentence awarded to the applicants by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal provided each of them furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they 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: 1. That they will appear before the learned trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their 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(s), 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-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also [2026:RJ-JP:2378-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2400/2025] 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-applicants do 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 /23