Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surajbhan Singh @ Kalu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:35057-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 144/2025
In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.29/2025
1. Surajbhan Singh @ Kalu S/o Dhan Singh Rajput, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o House No. 3/26, Ivth Phase, Riico,
P.s. Pratapngar, Dist. Bhilwara (Lodged In Central Jail,
Ajmer)
2. Jorawar Sansi S/o Raju Sansi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Behind Govt. School, Billiyakhurd, P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist.
Bhilwara (Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
07/08/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under
section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') (430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) seeking suspension of the following sentence
awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara
(hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') vide judgment dated
10.01.2025 passed in Session Case No.33/2017:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302/34 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to further
undergo one year rigorous
sentence
[2025:RJ-JD:35057-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-144/2025]
2. 323/34 One Year Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in
Imprisonment default thereof to further
undergo 15 days' rigorous
imprisonment
3. 324/34 Two Years' To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in
IPC Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo one month rigorous
sentence
4. 4/25 Two Years' To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in
Arms Rigorous default thereof to further
Act Imprisonment undergo one month rigorous
sentence
2. While informing that the applicants have been convicted for
the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), learned
counsel argued that the trial Court has convicted the applicants
essentially under section 34 of the IPC, since no injury caused to
the deceased was attributable to them.
3. Taking the Court through the relevant evidence, learned
counsel submitted that pursuant to disclosure made under section
27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the Investigating Officer had
recovered a sword from the applicant No.1 - Surajbhan Singh @
Kalu, while a knife was recovered from the applicant No.2 -
Jorawar Sansi. He asserted that neither any traces of blood were
found on these arms nor were they sent for forensic examination.
4. Learned counsel pointed out that as against this, a blood
stained knife was recovered from the co-accused Deepak Lakhara
and FSL report suggested that the blood group found thereon
matched with the blood group of the deceased. He argued that the
FSL and other evidence on record, including the statement of
[2025:RJ-JD:35057-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-144/2025]
injured-witness Rahul Singh - (P.W.-8) clearly proves that the only
injury which proved fatal was inflicted by said Deepak Lakhara.
5. Inviting Court's attention towards the Post-Mortem Report,
learned counsel submitted that cause of death of the deceased
was due to an injury caused by said Deepak Lakhara on his Lower
Back, which ruptured his kidney and damaged lower vertebra.
6. Taking the Court towards the relevant statements, learned
counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the
common intention for which the applicants' conviction by invoking
section 34 of the IPC is unsustainable in the eye of law.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that
the applicants are habitual offenders and they are part of a group
which came with arms and ammunition to murder the deceased
and caused grievous injuries to the persons of the victim group.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. On perusal of the judgment dated 10.01.2025 passed by the
trial Court, we find that the trial Court has recorded a clear finding
that fatal blow was inflicted by said Deepak Lakhara, who has
been convicted under section 302 of the IPC, whereas the present
applicants have been convicted for the offence under section 302
with the aid of section 34 of the IPC.
10. So far as the common intention or motive is concerned,
neither Rahul Singh (P.W.-8) nor the Investigating Officer has been
able to establish any motive.
[2025:RJ-JD:35057-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-144/2025]
11. On perusal of the statement of injured-witness Rahul Singh
(P.W.-8), it is apparent that even during his deposition in the Court
he has expressed surprise as to why the assailants have come
charging towards them, while they were sitting silently.
12. Apart from the general remarks that there was a previous
animosity on account of bursting of fire crackers, no cogent
evidence has been brought on record to prove that even the
present applicants had common intention.
13. The fact that the applicants were having a sword and a knife
in their possession and despite that they have not tried to cause
any injury to the deceased, we are of the view that the applicants
have made out a prima-facie case in their favour, more
particularly, because the applicants were on bail during the trial
and the trial of the case is likely to take substantial time.
14. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicants is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara vide
judgment dated 10.01.2025 in Session Case No.33/2017 against
the applicants - (1) Surajbhan Singh @ Kalu S/o Dhan Singh
Rajput and (2) Jorawar Sansi S/o Raju Sansi shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall
be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance
in this Court on 08.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
[2025:RJ-JD:35057-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-144/2025]
(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.
15. 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.
16. 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
16-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
