[2026:RJ-JP:16660-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 634/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.66/2025 Roshanlal S/o Raghunath Prasad Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Monapura Police Station Todabhim District Karauli (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ---Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rinesh Gupta Mr. Gorang Agarwal and Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 20/04/2026 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 Sessions Judge, Kathumar, District Alwar (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 23.01.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.30/2015 (115/2021) as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:16660-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-634/2025] 1. Under Section 364 IPC: Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/-; in default whereof, 30 days’ additional simple imprisonment. 2.Under Section 365 IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/-; in default whereof, 30 days’ additional simple imprisonment. 3. Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹50,000/-; in default whereof, 90 days’ additional simple imprisonment. 4. Under Section 201 IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/-; in default whereof, 30 days’ additional simple imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has examined Pintu Ram (PW5) as the sole witness of ‘last seen’. He contended that while, in his examination-in-chief, the PW5 has stated that on 11-12 May, 2014, the applicant had booked his taxi Bolero Car and had picked up a boy at about 1- 1:30 pm from Kanchanpura whose bones were found on 27.07.2014; however, during his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that Roshan neither booked his taxi nor, took a ride in it. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the bones recovered were of deceased Bhagwan Singh inasmuch as the prosecution has relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory Report which demonstrates that the DNA samples extracted from the bones matched with the DNA samples taken from the blood of parents of the deceased whereas, there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the blood samples, as a matter of fact, [2026:RJ-JP:16660-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-634/2025] were collected from the parents. He submits that the applicant is in custody for a period of more than 3 years and 4 month, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and prays for suspension of sentence. Per contra, though, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer but, could not dispute that there is no evidence available on record to show that the blood samples, as a matter of fact, were collected from parents of the deceased to match with the DNA extracted from the bones. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has examined Pintu Ram (PW5) as the sole witness of ‘last seen’. He, however, in his cross-examination has stated that the applicant has neither booked his taxi nor, ever took a ride in it. Further, admittedly, the only evidence led by the prosecution to demonstrate that the bones recovered on 27.07.2014 belonged to deceased was the FSL Report showing matching of DNA obtained from the bones with the DNA obtained from the blood samples of the parents of the deceased, but, indisputably, there is no evidence on record to demonstrate who had taken the blood samples of the parents and when. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we deem it just and proper to allow the application. In view thereof, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and the applicant- [2026:RJ-JP:16660-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-634/2025] Roshanlal S/o Raghunath Prasad Meena shall be released on bail provided that 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 22.05.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeal and subject to the following conditions:- 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 the learned counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform this Court. 3. Similarly, if the surety(ies) change(s) his/their address(es), he/they will give in writing his/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(s). Such file(s) 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(s) shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the learned trial Court. In case, the said accused-applicant does not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /9