[2026:RJ-JD:11866-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 304/2026 Hari Singh S/o Mokam Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Barna, Police Thana Khuhadi, District Jaisalmer (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jaisalmer)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

12/03/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the appellant-applicant in the matter of judgment dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No.33/2017 (43/2017) “State of Rajasthan v. Rewant Singh & Ors.”, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment, under Sections 147, 148 & 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant 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.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant-applicant 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-applicant, disclose a real and substantial possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it appears that the conviction may be reversed and the appellant-applicant may be acquitted, the appellate court ought to suspend the sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

8. Such discretion deserves to be exercised with greater circumspection in cases where the appellate forum has sufficient reason to believe that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future. In such circumstances, the court is required to assess whether the grounds raised are not merely ornamental but possess real substance and force, for the simple reason that if the appeal ultimately succeeds, the period of incarceration already undergone cannot be undone or restituted. In such a situation, the court sho