[2026:RJ-JP:11987-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1716/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.371/2025 1. Raghuvar S/o Bharatsingh, 2. Dablu S/o Mansingh, 3. Ghambhir S/o Diwan Singh, 4. Radhacharan S/o Diwan Singh, 5. Rahish S/o Mansingh, All above are Residents Of Village Chigga Ka Adda Atirajpura, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur.) (Presently Accused Appellants Confined In J.C. In District Jail Dholpur) ----Accused-Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Ms. Shweta Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Mohd. Haris for Mr. Kumud Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/03/2026 This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity, ‘the applicants’) along with the appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.) [2026:RJ-JP:11987-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1716/2025] vide judgement dated 12.08.2025 in Sessions Case (CIS) No.36/2019 as under: 1. Section 148 IPC: Two years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default whereof, three months’ additional simple imprisonment. 2. Section 323 IPC: One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 3. Section 341 IPC: One month’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment. 4. Section 325 IPC: Three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional simple imprisonment. 5. Section 307 IPC: Seven years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s additional simple imprisonment. 6. Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-; in default whereof, two years’ additional simple imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under Section 149 IPC is made out as there was no premeditation of mind. He further submits that since, the fatal injuries are attributed to co-accused-Gabbar, the applicants are entitled for the benefit of bail. Inviting attention of this Court towards the testimony of prosecution witnesses, he submits that none of the applicants had contributed to the death of deceased-Deshraj. He contended that the applicants were on bail during trial and prayed for their suspension of sentence. [2026:RJ-JP:11987-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1716/2025] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposing the submissions, prayed for dismissal of the application. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the judgment impugned and material available on record reflects that the allegation against the applicants is of constituting an unlawful assembly and committing murder of Deshraj in furtherance of their common object which stands corroborated from the ocular evidence including the testimony of injured eye witnesses namely; Sonu (PW3) and Devendra (PW5). As per the postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P11), he has received as many as 8 injuries including gun shot wounds, incised wounds and lacerated wounds. There has been recovery of weapons of offence based on disclosure statement made by the applicants. Their Lordships have, in the case of Om Prakash Sahni V/s. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another: (2023) 6 SCC 123, after analyzing a number of judicial precedents proceeded to hold as under:- “Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the [2026:RJ-JP:11987-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1716/2025] hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.” So far as individual role of applicants is concerned, Their Lordships have, in the case of Rajesh Upadhyay V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.: 2025 INSC 1468, held that at the time of consideration of suspension of sentence application, in the cases of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, individual role of the applicants is not expected to be examined by the High Court. In the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, we are not inclined to allow the application. Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /11