Suspension of sentence is justified when witness testimony regarding the accused's role is self-contradictory, the fatal act is not clearly attributed to the applicant, and the applicant has maintained a clean record while on bail during the trial period, ensuring fair treatment pending appeal.

JUDGMENT :

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 No.6, Kota (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.88101/2014 (CIS No.88101/2014) as under:-

1. Under Section 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default thereof, six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

2. Under Section 325/34 IPC: Three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default thereof, three months’ additional simple imprisonment.

3. Under Section 323/34 IPC: One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

2. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-8) of the body of the deceased-Kamlesh, would submit that single head injury was found to be fatal which, has not been attributed to the applicant. Referring to the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses such as Bheemraj (PW-5), Radheshyam (PW-3), Sampat Bai (PW-7), Phoolanta (PW-8) and Ladbhai (PW-12), he would submit that they all have deposed against him differently. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was on bail during trial, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and prays for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to him vide judgment impugned dated 24.03.2025 during pendency of the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. A perusal of the Exhibit P-8, the autopsy report of the deceased-Kamlesh reflects one fatal injury on his head which, as per the prosecution evidence, is not attributed to the applicant. The testimony of injured eye-witnesses as to the role played by the applicant, is self-contradictory. The applicant was on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse. 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 for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and the Rameshwar S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 30.06.2026 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 his learned counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform this Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(es), they will give in writing their changed address(es) to the learned trial Court.

8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file 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 shall not be taken into account