[2026:RJ-JP:511]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 1735/2025

in

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2347/2025

1. Ajay, Son Of Surendra Singh, Resident Of Saipau Road,

Bari, District Dholpur.

2. Vijay, Son Of Surendra, Resident Of Saipau Road, Bari,

District Dholpur.

(Both are presently lodged In District Jail Dholpur)

----Accused appellants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Appellants(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Advocate

Mr. Asha Ram Singh, Advocate

Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Dewanda, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

08/01/2026

1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellants under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 4.8.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Badi, District Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 72/2016, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 325, 504, 307 IPC and

sentenced as under:

Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine U/s. 147 IPC: To undergo 1 Rs. 1000/- To further year’s SI undergo 1 month’s SI U/s. 148 IPC: To undergo 2 Rs. 2000/- To further years’ SI undergo 3 months’ SI U/s. 323 IPC: To undergo 1 Rs. 1000/- To further year’s SI undergo 1 month’s SI U/s. 341 IPC: To undergo 1 Rs. 500/- To further month’s SI undergo 15 days’ SI U/s. 325 IPC: To undergo 3 Rs. 5000/- To further years’ SI undergo 6 months’ SI U/s. 504 IPC: To undergo 1 Rs. 1000/- To further year’s SI undergo 1 month’s SI U/s. 307 IPC: To undergo 7 Rs.10,000/- To further years’ SI undergo 1 year’s SI All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the FIR as also in the statement of prosecution witnesses, the allegations of causing firm arm injury was upon Nitu, Jamuda, Baniya @ Rizwan and no allegation of causing fire arm injury was levelled against the accused appellants. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the medical evidence as well as the statement of the witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place on 6.6.2016 and the medical of Sanju Singh was also conducted on 6.6.2016, but complainant PW-1 Sanju Singh in his cross-examination stated that his medical examination was got conducted on 7.6.2016. He further submits that the accused appellants were on bail during trial. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take long time, hence the sentence of the accused appellant be suspended.

4. On the other hand, learned Dy. GA appearing for the State has opposed the same. He submits that the accused appellants alongwith other accused persons caused injuries to the injured persons with fire arm, sticks (laathies) and stones. The weapon (laathi) was also recovered on the basis of information furnished by the accused appellants under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-10 Dr. Gopal Goyal categorically stated in his evidence that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were by fire arms and blunt weapon. As per X-ray report (Ex. P/27), injured Santoshi, who died during trial, sustained multiple fractures – frontal bone of skull, fracture of both zygomatic arch, fracture of anterior maxilla and nasal bone and wiring plate at Zygomatic Artch, plate with screw in Nasal bone and anterior maxilla. Fracture of IInd and IIIrd metacarpal bone in his right hand; fracture of left clavicle bone. These injuries were grievous in nature. He further submits that against accused appellants Ajay and Vijay 9-9 cases were registered. They are habitual offenders, hence their sentence should not be suspended.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of PW-1 Sanju Singh and PW-2 Pradeep, medical evidence, recovery of weapon (Laathi) at the instance of the accused appellants and their