Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Partha vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 1292/2023
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 213/2023
1. Partha S/o Logar Gameti, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Chasda Gameti Basti, Police Station Kurabad,
District Udaipur.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
2. Roop Lal S/o Ram Gameti, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Chasda Gameti Basti, Police Station Kurabad,
District Udaipur.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Applicants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Bheema S/o Megha Meena, R/o Mala Ka Guda Wali, Police
Station Kurabad, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria with
Mr. Naresh Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
20/08/2025
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 BNSS') (section 389 of Criminal
Procedure Code) seeking suspension of following sentences
awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1292/2023]
Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') vide judgment
dated 04.09.2023 passed in Session Case No. 293/2019:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302/34 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in
IPC default thereof to further
undergo six months' S.I.
2. 201/34 Seven Years' S.I. To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to further
undergo one months' S.I.
2. Mr. Deepak Menaria, learned counsel for the applicants
argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the
investigating officer, which is evident from the fact that while
lodging the written complaint (Exhibit-P/1) at 07:15 p.m. on
20.08.2019 the complainant - Bhima (P.W.1) had narrated the
entire story of murder of deceased, which was not even known to
the investigating officer. He argued that it is highly improbable
that the accused would first strangulate the deceased and hang
the body from a tree so as to give it an impression of suicide and
then throw the body in the river/dam to obliterate the evidence.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has convicted
the applicants essentially on the basis of recovery of one anklet
(ik;tsc) and threads/traces of 'Chunri', which were recovered from
the field of the applicant no.2 - Roop Lal vide recovery memo
Exhibit-P/13 and not from their own conscious possession. He
argued that neither there is any evidence of last seen against the
applicants nor is there any motive attributed to them. While
pointing out from the testimony of (P.W.9) Kalu Lal (brother of the
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1292/2023]
deceased) who deposed that the deceased had left the home by
saying that she was going to her in-laws place, learned counsel
argued that the investigating officer had not conducted any
investigation as to where did the deceased Shanti go after she left
home. In this regard, learned counsel took the Court through the
admission of the investigating officer, who during his cross-
examination had accepted that he did not investigate about the
fact that where did the deceased live from 14 th of August to 16th of
August, 2019.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
application for suspension of sentence by contending that the
recovery of one anklet and traces of the Chunri from the field of
the accused-applicant coupled with the fact that report of Forensic
Science Laboratory (Exhibit-P/66) which shows that those traces
are likely to be that of the Chunri, which was found tied to the
neck of the deceased, are enough to prove applicants' guilt.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. For ready reference, the written complaint (Exhibit-P/1)
submitted by Bhima (P.W.1) - father of the deceased is reproduced
as under:-
"lsok esa]
Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc]
Fkkuk dwjkcM] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½
izkFkhZ& Hkhek firk es?kkth tkfr&eh.kk] mez& 45 o'kZ] fuoklh&ekyk dk
xqMk oyhZ] Fkkuk dwjkcM] ftyk mn;iqj]
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1292/2023]
fo'k;& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djokus gsrqA
egksn; th]
fuosnu gS fd esjh iq=h "kkUrh ftldh "kknh djhc 8&9 lky
igys iryh;k fuoklh ukukyky firk es?kkth eh.kk ds lkFk dh Fkh tks
vius llqjky vkrh&tkrh FkhA vkt ls djhc 1 eghus igys "kkfUr
iryh;k ls lkViwj fuoklh izFkk iwr yksxj xesrh ds lkFk pyh xbZ FkhA
ftldk irk pyus ij eSa o iwoZ ljiap lkgc ifr dkywth] ghjk th]
"kaadj] thok lkViwj x;s o "kkfUr dks le>kdj esjs ?kj yk;sA blds
ckn fnukad 14-08-2019 dks nksigj dks ,d cts "kkfUr us eq>s o esjs ?kj
okyksa dks vius llqjky iryh;k tkus dk cksydj pyh xbZA vkt "kke
dks djhc 5 cts esjs iq= dkyw ds Qksu ij Fkkus ls Qksu vk;k fd
rqEgkjh cgu "kkfUr dh yk"k tkejh Mse lkViwj esa feyh gSA ftlij
esjk iq= dkyw ogka ij igqapk rks "kkfUr dh yk"k dks igpkuk o eq>s Hkh
dkyw us Qksu dj voxr djk;k ftlij eSaus "kkfUr ds ckjs esa irk
fd;k] irk pyk fd izFkk firk yksxj xesrh o :i yky firk jkek
xesrh nksuksa us esjh iq=h "kkfUr lkFk ekj&ihV dj ml gR;k djds
vkRegR;k dh cukoVh dj mldks xys pqUuh dk QUnk Mky dj yVdk
nh ,oa blds ckn gR;k dk lcwr feVkus d fy, "kkfUr dh yk"k dks
bu nksuksa us ekSdk ns[kdj tkejh Mse lkViwj esa ykdj Mky fn;kA
fjiksVZ djrk gwa dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djsA
Hkhek "
7. A perusal of the above quoted report (Exhibit-P/1) lodged by
the complainant - father of the deceased Bhima (P.W.1) at about
07:15 p.m. raises a natural doubt, as to how did he come to know
about the exact events, that had happened before the body of the
deceased was found in the dam on 20.08.2019, within three hours
of being informed about the body of the deceased.
8. True it is, that one anklet was found on the body of the
deceased and another anklet was recovered from the field of the
accused-applicant no.2, which is an open place, where everybody
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1292/2023]
has access. But said anklet cannot be said to have been recovered
from the conscious possession of the applicants.
9. That apart, there is no evidence of motive or last seen. The
brother of the deceased Kalu Lal (P.W.9) had on the contrary
deposed that while leaving the house, the deceased had said that
she was going to her in-law's house (Sasural); and the fact that
the investigating officer had not conducted any investigation about
the whereabouts of the deceased from 14 th August, 2019 till her
death, particularly as to whether the deceased lived with the
accused-applicants or at her in-law's place. We are, therefore, of
the view that the applicants have a prima-facie case for grant of
suspension of sentence, as the hearing of appeal will take
substantial time.
10. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicants is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Udaipur in Session Case No.293/2019 against the applicants
namely (1) Partha S/o Logar Gameti and (2) Roop Lal S/o
Ram Gameti shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
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 23.09.2025 and whenever
ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions
indicated below:-
[2025:RJ-JD:37234-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1292/2023]
(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.
11. 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 do not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
12. 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 or final hearing of the appeal.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
38-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
