##PAGE1##

2026 INSC 1180 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos…….………….of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.19778-19780 of 2026)

Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram ….Appellant VERSUS State of Rajasthan & Ors.

…. Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The crime alleged arises from a political rivalry, leading to the murder of a person standing for election as Sarpanch. The deceased and A1, a Government Teacher, belonged to rival factions. A1’s son was elected as Sarpanch earlier who had to vacate his office when he obtained a government employment. The deceased, hence, was standing for the resultant bye- elections which enraged A1. The allegation was that a conspiracy was hatched and while A1 deliberately kept aloof, at Signature Not Verified his instigation, A6 who had been in jail with A7 planned the Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.10.30 Reason:

assassination of the candidate, carried out through A11 and A12.

3. The party respondents herein who are also accused other than A1 were roped in for offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for hatching conspiracy and actively assisting A1, the kingpin and the perpetrators of the crime, A11 and A12. A1 was handed down a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC with a sentence of life imprisonment, while the other party respondents herein were convicted under Section 120B with imprisonment of 10 years.

4. The High Court, according to the appellant granted bail after an erroneous consideration of the evidence, suspending the sentence of the party respondents herein. The suspension of sentence was essentially due to the fact that there were many criminal appeals pending in the High Court and it was impossible to dispose of the matter, at any time in the near future. The father of the deceased, the first informant is before us, contesting the suspension of sentence as granted cursorily by the High Court.

5. We heard, Mr. Rishi Matoliya, learned AoR appearing for the appellant. Mr.Rajan Kumar Chourasia, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent State, Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned AoR, appearing for A1, Mr. Vikas Verma, learned AoR appearing A2, A8 and A10.

6. As we observed, A1 is accused of having masterminded the crime and though he was not present, he was behind the conspiracy. A brief reading of the judgment would indicate that numerous witnesses were examined, a few of whom were eyewitnesses and a few who had specifically spoken of a motive regarding the political rivalry, some of whom were eyewitness too that A1 was not present at the scene of occurrence is fairly admitted.

7. However, the witnesses speak of rivalry between A1 and the deceased and A1 making open threats in the office of the SDM, who was the Returning Officer that the deceased would not be alive till the election. The father too, as we see from the judgment of the Trial Court, spoke of his son having informed him about the threat. The High Court, however found that he had admitted to such a statement having not been made in the FIS or in the statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. We do not see such a finding emanating from the judgment of the Trial Court. In any event, even if that had not been stated by the father, there was credible testimony of the other witnesses who had been present when the threats were levelled, brazenly that the candidate would be killed. It is also pertinent that A6; who is said to have arranged the assailants through a dreaded gang-leader-A7, is still absconding, though A7 is acquitted.

8. Relevant is also the fact that PW40, an Assistant Commissioner had specifically stated that on the fateful day when the crime was committed, without any notice or provocation, A1 was present in the police station with another; that another also not having been summoned on that particular date. The Trial Court drew an inference that such appearance made by A1 was a deliberate attempt