[2026:RJ-JP:7622-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2182/2024 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 426/2024 Ramjilal Son Of Ramdhan, R/o Kumawas Khicharan Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP, Ms. Neha Goyal & Mr. Vinod Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order 18/02/2026 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 Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu vide judgment dated 19.10.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.31/2024 as under:- 1. Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹20,000/-; in default whereof, two years’ additional rigorous imprisonment. [2026:RJ-JP:7622-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2182/2024] 2. Under Section 323 IPC: One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecution witnesses, would submit that the eye witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution has not been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, his connection with the offence. He submits that the prosecution has also not been able to establish motive behind the crime. He, therefore, prays that the suspension of sentence application be allowed. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind Vs. State of Haryana; 2025 Live Law (SC) 1106. Per contra, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General opposed the application. Heard. Considered. From the material on record, it is reflected that in the FIR dated 05.11.2023 lodged by Shri Ramdhan- father of the applicant as also of the deceased, it was specifically alleged that the applicant inflicted multiple blows on the body of the deceased with the intention to eliminate him. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. P-15) and the testimony of Dr. Chandra Prakash Dhaka (PW-9)- a member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, death occurred due to neurogenic shock on account of fracture of vertebrae C-2 to C-4, the result of antemortem injuries. Learned trial Court has held that as per Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex. P-32), the DNA profile obtained from the blood on the cloth of [2026:RJ-JP:7622-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2182/2024] the deceased and the blood on the lathi- the weapon of offence, recovered at the instance of the applicant, has matched. It is trite law that at the time of consideration of suspension of sentence application, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes in the prosecution story. It is also a well settled legal principle that once a finding of conviction is recorded, presumption of innocence, which is available at the time of consideration of the bail application, vanishes. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by Their Lordships in the case of Govind (supra); but, the same is not germane at the stage of consideration of the suspension of sentence application. Looking to the nature and gravity of accusation against the applicant, we are not inclined to allow the suspension of sentence application. Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J JKP/7