Suspension of sentence is permissible when an investigative report omits an accused, witness testimony is unclear regarding injury attribution, the conduct of the accused during trial was compliant, and the appellate process is likely to be prolonged.

JUDGMENT :

This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity, “the applicants”) alongwith the appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar (Raj.) (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 08.12.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.79/2021 (CIS No.79/2021) as under:-

1. Under Section 341/34 IPC: One month’s simple imprisonment.

2. Under Section 323/34 IPC: One year’s simple imprisonment.

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

2. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that while, name of applicant-Dilip Singh @ Sarvan Singh did not figure in the FIR lodged by Gopal Singh (PW-1)-an eye-witness and brother of the deceased, allegation against another applicant- Narvar Singh was of inflicting injuries on the face of the deceased Poor Singh with pebbles/stones. Inviting attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased (Exhibit P-9) and the deposition of Dr. Surendra Kumar Meena (PW-24), a member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, he contended that cause of death was found to be cumulative effect of injuries on head and in stomach; however, there was no allegation against the applicants of inflicting the fatal injuries. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the applicants were on bail during trial, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and prayed for suspension of sentence awarded to them vide judgment impugned dated 08.12.2025 during pendency of the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. A perusal of the written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by Gopal Singh (PW-1) reflects absence of name of the applicant Dilip Singh with no allegation of inflicting any injury to the deceased against Narvar Singh. From the statement of the eye witnesses namely Gopal Singh (PW-1), Lal Singh (PW-2), Pooja (PW-3), Geetabai (PW-15) & Bheru Singh (PW-15), we find that the allegations of inflicting an injury on the head of the deceased by a sword is against co-accused Toofan Singh and of inflicting injury on the person of the deceased with a Gandasi (a curved sharp edged instrument) against co-accused Govind Singh. The applicants were on bail during the 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 applicants.

7. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentence awarded to the applicants by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeals and they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on 30.06.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeals and subject to the following conditions:-

1. That they will appear before the learned trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeals are decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address(es) to the learned trial Court as well as to their learned counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform this Court.

3. Similarly