Smt Badhu vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 16471 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt Badhu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:53350-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 2213/2025

                                           In

                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No.388/2025

1.       Smt Badhu W/o Hemnath, Aged About 60 Years, Resident
         Of Bamblu, P.s. Jamsar District Bikaner. At Present
         Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner.
2.       Smt Saroj D/o Hemnath, Aged About 30 Years, W/o
         Heernath, Aged 30 Years, Resident Of Bamblu, P.s.
         Jamsar District Bikaner. At Present Lodged In Central Jail,
         Bikaner.
3.       Smt Sita W/o Sohannath, Aged About 50 Years, Resident
         Of Bamblu, P.s. Jamsar District Bikaner. At Present
         Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr.Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. C.S. Ojha



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/12/2025

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under

Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellants-

applicants Smt. Badhu W/o Hemnath, Smt. Saroj D/o Hemnath

and Smt. Sita W/o Sohannath, who have been convicted and

sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:17:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53350-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2213/2025]

No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case 29/2014. They have been

punished under Sections 147 IPC and 302 IPC and sentenced for

life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default

clause.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 27.05.2014, at

about 5:30 p.m., Bhanwar Nath was allegedly intercepted near a

well by a group of persons travelling in a pickup vehicle, including

the accused Mohan Nath and others. They brutally assaulted and

inflicted fatal injuries on Bhanwar Nath with lathis and thereafter

fled away from the scene, abandoning the vehicle after it hit a

wall. The injured was taken to PBM Hospital, where he was

declared dead. On the written report lodged the same night by the

complainant Akanath, FIR No. 105/2014 was registered at P.S.

Jamsar, District Bikaner, initially against Mohan Nath under Section

302 IPC, with further investigation against other assailants kept

pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

2.1. Upon completion of investigation, charges under Section 302

IPC were framed against Mohan Nath. During trial, on the basis of

evidence led, additional accused (present appellants) were

summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charged for offences

under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, alternatively under Section 302

r.w. Section 149 IPC. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and

produced documentary and material evidence, while the defence

adduced limited evidence. By judgment dated 17.11.2025, the

trial court convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections

147 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence the

instant application for suspension of sentence.

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:17:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53350-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2213/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the

trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the

accused-appellants. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants

that a false case has been foisted against them. They are willing

and ready to furnish bail bonds for their release. Therefore, the

application for suspension of sentence may be granted and their

sentence may be suspended.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the

prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the relevant record available on the Court file.

6. A careful and composite reading of the record makes it

manifest that, during the course of investigation, the present

appellants were expressly exonerated by the investigating agency.

They were not sent for trial. Consequently, they were not

arraigned as accused before the Court at the stage contemplated

under Sections 190 to 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

They were implicated only at a subsequent stage of the trial, when

certain prosecution witnesses, for the first time, attributed an

active role to them in the alleged occurrence. Acting upon such

belated testimonies, the complainant invoked the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Pursuant

thereto the appellants were summoned, arrested, subjected to

trial, and eventually convicted.

6.1. In this peculiar factual milieu, this Court, while exercising

jurisdiction as the first appellate court, is under a solemn

obligation to undertake a thorough, balanced, and dispassionate

reappraisal of both the factual substratum and the legal

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:17:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53350-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2213/2025]

framework of the prosecution case. The depositions of witnesses

who implicated the appellants only during trial, despite their prior

silence and notwithstanding the clear investigative exoneration,

necessarily warrant the most cautious and rigorous scrutiny.

Significantly, the conviction of the appellants is founded almost

entirely on the perceived credibility of these witnesses, whereas

the investigative report had unequivocally opined in their favour.

6.2. Equally material is the fact that no recovery of any weapon,

incriminating article, or other corroborative evidence has been

effected at the instance of the present appellants. The

conspicuous absence of such supporting material, when viewed in

conjunction with their earlier absolution during investigation,

raises serious, substantial, and eminently arguable questions

striking at the very root of the impugned judgment of conviction.

These issues call for an in-depth examination in the present

appeal, the final hearing and disposal whereof, given its nature

and pendency, is likely to take a considerable length of time.

7. Considering the overall submissions of the parties and

looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while

refraining from passing any final comments on the merits of the

matter, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending

the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants.

8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentence passed by the learned vide judgment dated 17.11.2025

in Sessions Case No.29/2014 against the appellant-applicants-

named in first para of the order shall remain suspended till final

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:17:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53350-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2213/2025]

disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail

provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this

court on 12.01.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. 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 their counsel(s) in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

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.

                                   (FARJAND ALI),J                                                  (ARUN MONGA),J
                                    19-Mamta/-




                                                             (Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:17:24 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)