Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 37
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH, MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, JJ
JUVENILE GI SON OF KISHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
SOSA / 2290 / 2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Juvenile Justice - Status of juveniles in criminal proceedings - The court recognizes the juvenile status of both the applicant and the deceased during the incident, impacting the decision regarding the suspension of sentence. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, sentenced to life imprisonment, claims false implication in a case where both he and the deceased were juveniles. The trial relied on circumstantial evidence without CCTV footage. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court finds it just to suspend the sentence due to the juvenile status of the parties involved and the nature of the evidence, allowing the applicant to be released on bail during the appeal. (Paras 5, 6)
Issues: The main issue addressed is whether the sentence should be suspended given the juvenile status of the applicant and the circumstances of the case. (Paras 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of the juvenile status and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, indicating that it is just to allow bail during the lengthy appeal process. (Paras 5)
Result: The application for suspension of sentence is allowed.
Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar, Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Ms. Neha Goyal, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Sharma
ORDER :
1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the applicant along with the appeal.
2. Counsel for the applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that during the trial, the applicant was on bail and the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the applicant under Section 302 of IPC and he is in judicial custody at Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that at the time of incident the accused-applicant as well as deceased both were juvenile. He further submits that no CCTV footage were collected by the Investigating agency during investigation and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by counsel for the complainant opposed the suspension of sentence application.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that the applicant as well as deceased both were juvenile at the of incident and the applicant was on bail during trial and the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the hearing of appeal may take long time, We deem it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application.
6. In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the applicant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 04.04.2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.
7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance.
