Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1911/2025
1. Chetan Singh S/o Ramansingh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh,
raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
2. Devendra Singh @ Pintu Singh S/o Daulat Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali,
Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh, raj. (At Present Lodged In
Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
3. Rajesh Kumar @ Monty @ Ponty S/o Shivnarayan, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali,
Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh, raj. (At Present Lodged In
Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
4. Rajesh S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh,
raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ali
Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 16/10/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') [430(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking suspension of the following sentence awarded to them by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025] (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') vide judgment dated 14.06.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.87/2012 (01/2019):-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 147 IPC One Year Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in Imprisonment default thereof to further undergo one month additional sentence
2. 323/149 Six Months To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in of IPC Rigorous default thereof to further Imprisonment undergo fifteen Days' additional sentence
3. 302/149 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in of IPC default thereof to further undergo six months' additional sentence
2. Mr. Zeeshan Ali, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated and a case of apparent accident has been projected as a murder, without there being any evidence.
3. He contended that if the testimony of PW-1 (Raju Singh), PW-3 (Om Prakash) and PW-4 (Govind Singh) is read in conjunction, it is clear that each of the witnesses had their own version of story to tell and the same does not lead to logical conclusion as projected by the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that how the Investigating Officer caught hold of the applicants, is beyond anybody's comprehension, inasmuch as none of the so called eye- witnesses could identify the applicants.
5. He submitted that PW-4 (Govind Singh) who happens to be star witness of the prosecution has clearly stated that he did not (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025] know the accused persons. He further underscored that PW-1 (Raju Singh) has gone to the extent of stating that he had named the accused persons as told by Govind Singh.
6. Inviting Court's attention towards the injury report and the statement of Doctor Avinash (PW-21) and his cross-examination, learned counsel argued that the possibility that Kamlesh died of accident by falling on his left side cannot be ruled out, more particularly, when all the persons riding on the motorcycle including PW-1 (Raju Singh), PW3 (Om Prakash) and PW-4 (Govind Singh) sustained injuries.
7. Learned counsel submitted that had 8-10 people inflicted injuries upon the deceased, the possibility that he would suffer all the injuries on a particular side of the body (left side) is improbable.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that application for suspension of sentence of co-accused person Roshan has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1591/2025 and the case of present applicants is not distinguishable from him. He prayed that the applicants be also enlarged on bail.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence by submitting that there is enough evidence against the applicants. He argued that the applicants are not entitled to any indulgence.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the Post Mortem Report and the statement of the Doctor, it is clear (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025] that all the injuries suffered by the deceased were on the left side of the body. That apart, neither any weapon has been recovered nor any specific averment as to how and in what manner Kamlesh was beaten has come on record.
11. We find a number of holes in the investigation and evidence led. It is intriguing that the informant PW-10 (Rajendra Kumar) while submitting written complaint had in unequivocal terms stated that he received information at about 8.30 p.m. that Kamlesh - the deceased had met with an accident.
12. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted and PW-1 and PW-4 in express terms have admitted that they did not know the assailants much less their names. Statement of Govind Singh (PW-4) whose in-laws used to live outside of the village, shows that he never visited those parts of village, where the applicants - alleged assailants used to live. The accused persons were shown to the eye-witnesses near the river, as told by Govind Singh (PW-
4) in his cross-examination. The identification so made cannot be treated to be an identification in the eye of law.
13. Furthermore, the injuries which the deceased had suffered (only on the left side of the body) when the prosecution story is, that 4 or more persons had assaulted coupled with the fact that none of the eye-witnesses have stated the reason for the injury and the manner in which the injuries were caused so also the fact that no weapon has been recovered from any of the accused persons, we are persuaded to allow the application for suspension of sentence.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]
14. In view of the discussion foregoing, we feel that the applicants who are behind the bars for more than 1 year are entitled to be enlarged on bail and their application for suspension of sentence merits acceptance.
15. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants are hereby allowed. It is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 14.06.2024 in Sessions Case No.87/2012 (01/2019) against the applicants - (1) Chetan Singh S/o Ramansingh, (2) Devendra Singh @ Pintu Singh S/o Daulat Singh, (3) Rajesh Kumar @ Monty @ Ponty S/o Shivnarayan and (4) Rajesh S/o Radheshyam shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 17.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(i) That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(ii) That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
(iii) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]
16. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
17. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicants are prima-facie opinion considering the material to the extent necessary for the purpose of consideration of instant application. None of the parties shall rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the time of arguing final hearing of the appeal.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
29-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)