HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.317/2026 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 348/2026

1. Asharam S/o Ramnarayan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ghas,police Station Sadar Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

2. Kalu S/o Bhura, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Amthani Kadana, Police Station Kadana, District Mahisagar, Gujarat.

3. Laxman S/o Chatrubhai, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Yachod, Policestation Santrampur, Santrampur, Mahisagar, Gujarat.

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

13/02/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.22/2021, arising out of FIR No.219/2020 of Police Station Khamera, District Banswara, whereby the applicants were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Sections 3/8, 5/8, 6/8 and 9 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995, and further to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 3/6/8 of the said Act, with stipulated default sentences.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. There exists a fine yet significant distinction between the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC. While the power exercised under Section 439 CrPC is essentially discretionary in nature and operates at the pre-conviction stage, the jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC, though also discretionary, is qualitatively different and operates post-conviction. Under Section 389 CrPC, the appellate court is vested with a distinct authority; however, the core consideration before the appellate forum must necessarily be whether the judgment of conviction and the consequent order of sentence are sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. It is trite that the presumption of innocence, which enures in favour of an accused, comes to an end upon conviction. Consequently, while considering an application under Section 389 CrPC, the appellate court is required to examine the grounds raised in the appeal, and for such purpose, the oral and documentary evidence must be looked into. Where, upon appreciation of evidence, it appears that the conclusions drawn by the trial court may be erroneous, and where logical, legal and sustainable arguments are advanced assailing the findings, disclosing a strong and arguable case, the appellate court is duty-bound to consider such contentions.

7. Where the sustainability of the conviction itself becomes debatable, and where the grounds raised in appeal, if adjudicated in favour of the appellant, disclose a real and substantial possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it appears that the conviction may be reversed and the appellant may be acquitted, the appellate court ought to suspend the sen