Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manoj vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 903/2025
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.167/2025
1. Manoj S/o Chhagna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Guleriya Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu. (At Present
Lodged In Sub Jail, Sujangarh)
2. Raju @ Raju Ram S/o Chhagna Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Guleriya Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu. (At
Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Sujangarh)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
Mr. Punit Choudhary
Mr. Aashish Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
14/08/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants
under section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as the 'B.N.S.S.") seeking suspension of
the following sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to
as 'trial Court') vide judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed in
Session Case No.13/2018:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-903/2025]
default thereof to further
undergo six months' additional
imprisonment
2. 449 IPC Five Years' To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in
Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo two months'
additional imprisonment
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that in the FIR
which was lodged by the complainant - Chet Ram had asserted the
fact that the accused-persons have beaten the deceased - Lala
Ram incessantly with the help of Lathi, due to which he had
passed away.
3. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution had filed a
charge-sheet on the basis of number of eye-witnesses, most of
them (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-12, PW-
14 and PW-15) had turned hostile.
4. Inviting Court's attention towards the testimony of PW-7 and
PW-11, learned counsel for the applicants highlighted that PW-7
(Chhagnaram) in his testimony said that he was woken up by PW-
11 - wife of the deceased (Pushi Devi), whereas PW-11 stated
that Chagan Lal had woken her up and argued that in face ofsuch
conflicting version, PW-7 and PW-11 cannot be said to be eye-
witnesses.
5. Emphasizing upon the statement of PW-17 - Dr. Mahesh
Toshan, which he gave during his cross-examination, learned
counsel submitted that the Doctor had unequivocally said that the
injury suffered by the deceased cannot be caused by a lathi,
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-903/2025]
whereas the Investigating Officer had recovered a lathi from the
applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the
applicants were apprehended after 24 hours of the incident that
too from their own house with their blood stained clothes and
argued that such situation is highly improbable, as no accused
when surrounded by their family members would remain on the
place of murder that too wearing his blood stained clothes for 24
hours - he added that either he would surrender before the police
or would run away.
7. Learned counsel highlighted that the witnesses of the
recovery have also turned hostile.
8. Having said so, learned counsel argued that the prosecution
has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas
despite there being several lacunae in the investigation and gaps
in the prosecution's story, the trial Court has convicted the
applicants. Submitting that the applicants have remained behind
the bars for more than 7 years and there is every likelihood that
the appeal filed by the applicants will be allowed, he prayed that
the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants
be allowed.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail
application by submitting that the eye-witnesses are close family
members of the applicants so also the deceased and therefore, the
possibility that they have turned hostile in order to save the
applicants cannot be ruled out.
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-903/2025]
10. He submitted that when the applicants were arrested their
blood stained clothes were found on their body by the
Investigating Officer and the Forensic Laboratory has clearly
determined that the blood stained clothes recovered from the
applicants contained Blood Group 'AB', which matched with the
blood group of the deceased.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. We are of the prima-facie view that the application for
suspension of sentence filed by the applicants deserves to be
allowed not simply, because most of the eye-witnesses have
turned hostile but also because perusal of the material on record
shows that the applicants have made out a prima-facie case for
acceptance of their application for suspension of sentence. The
conclusions are summarized hereinfra:-
(i) In light of the testimony of the Doctor (PW-17), who in his
cross-examination, has stated that the nature of the injury
sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by a lathi
and could only be inflicted by a sharp edged weapon, whereas
lathi has been recovered from both the applicants.
(ii) The testimony of the witness PW-1, who has turned hostile if
examined vis-a-vis qua the brother of the deceased and the
injured witness, it is clear that both of them have stated that they
were informed about the death of Lala Ram by the other. Such
being the position, the possibility that they had seen the
happening of the incident becomes negligible.
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-903/2025]
(iii) That apart, we find some substance in the contention of
learned counsel for the applicants that no accused would keep
blood stained clothes for about 24 hours after having murdered
their close relative who lives in the same compound.
13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the
application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants
merits acceptance, more particularly, when they have remained
behind the bars for more than 7 years.
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 Additional Sessions Judge,
Sujangarh, District Churu vide judgment dated 20.03.2025 in
Sessions Case No.13/2018 against the applicants - (1) Manoj
S/o Chhagna Ram and (2) Raju @ Raju Ram S/o Chhagna
Ram 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 15.09.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:36420-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-903/2025]
(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
25-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
