A court may suspend a sentence pending appeal if there is a demonstrated discrepancy between medical evidence of the cause of death and eyewitness testimony, provided the applicant has not previously misused bail conditions and the appeals process is likely to be prolonged.

Order :

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”) along with the appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional & District Sessions Judge No.1, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 09.04.2026 passed in Sessions Case 14/2016 (CIS No.14/2016) as under:-

Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional imprisonment.

Section 120B IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional imprisonment.

Section 365 IPC:- Five years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, two months’ additional imprisonment.

Section 323 IPC:- Six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional imprisonment.

Section 342 IPC:- Six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, fifteen days’ additional imprisonment.

Section 143 IPC:- Three months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-; in default whereof, fifteen days’ additional imprisonment.

Sentences to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants, inviting attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased (Ex.P-21) and the statement of the members of the medical board namely Dr. Ashvini Goyal (PW-10), Dr. Vishambhar Gupta (PW-11) and Dr. Prem Chand (PW-19), would submit that although, there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased but, same were found to be simple in nature and cause of death was found to be asphyxia on account of smothering. He submits that none of the eye witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution, has alleged that the applicants murdered the deceased by smothering rather, their only allegation is of beating the deceased. Learned counsel further contends that as per the prosecution testimony, when condition of the deceased deteriorated, the applicants, along with co-accused, had taken him to hospital for treatment. He asserts that applicants were on bail during trial, hearing of appeal is likely to take time and prays for suspension of their sentence.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the prayer.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. From the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased and the testimony of the members of medical board, it is reflected that injuries on the body of the deceased were found to be simple in nature and cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to smothering. However, two eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution namely Sheeshram (PW-1) and Roshan (PW-6) have not stated that the applicants caused death of deceased Bhojraj by strangulation rather, their only allegation is of beating the deceased. It is also reflected that the deceased was being beaten on an allegation of stealing of a buffalo and when his condition deteriorated, the applicants, along with co-accused as also members of deceased's family, had taken him to hospital. The applicants were on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.

6. In the conspectus of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

7. Resultantly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicants by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2026 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and the applicants- Sayarmal Son Of Sardara Gurjar, Deshra