[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1878/2025
1. Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
2. Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Adv. Asst. by
Mr. Arvind Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary Sr. Adv
Asst by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/12/2025
1. Aforesaid applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced vide judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case
No.21/2009 (CIS No.149/2009) as per the details below:
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of
fine
1. Section Life Rs.20,000/- 3 Months S.I.
302/149 Imprisonment
IPC
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
2. Section 10 Years S.I. Rs.20,000/- 3 Months S.I.
IPC
3. Section 10 Years S.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 Month S.I.
IPC
4. Section 7 Years S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month S.I.
IPC
5. Section 3 Years S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month S.I.
IPC
6. Section 6 Months S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 Days S.I.
IPC
7. Section 1 Year S.I. Rs.500/- 10 Days S.I.
IPC
8. Section 3 Year S.I. Rs.500/- 10 Days S.I.
IPC
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant seeks
suspension of sentence under Section 430 of B.N.S.S.
(389 Cr.P.C.) and release them on bail.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicants as well
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia assisted by
Mr. Arvind Singh appearing for the applicants would urge that both
the applicants are senior citizens (being 68 and 65 years,
respectively) and were on bail during the trial which lasted as long
as 17 years and they never misused the concession granted to
them.
4.1 Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel would point out that
mere omnibus allegations of causing injuries are attributed to the
applicants herein. No specific role of any fatal injury or otherwise
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
has been assigned to them. The impugned judgment dated
01.08.2025 is not sustainable as it disregards the evidence on
record and is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The
prosecution case suffers from serious factual, evidentiary, and
procedural infirmities, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
4.2. He would argue that the alleged incident occurred at about
1:00 a.m. on a pitch-dark night. All material witnesses (PW-1
Radha, PW-2 Jagdish, and PW-4 Seema) are close relatives of the
deceased and admittedly were asleep at the time of the incident.
In such circumstances, their claim of having clearly identified the
accused is inherently doubtful, particularly when no evidence of
lighting at the spot was investigated or recorded in the site plan or
halat mauka. Their testimonies are inconsistent regarding
visibility, weather conditions, and moonlight, and materially
contradict each other.
4.3. There are no independent eyewitnesses. Crucial alleged
independent witnesses i.e. neighbour Nopa Ram, who purportedly
took the injured to the hospital, and the complainant's grandfather
Sugana Ram were available, but deliberately withheld by the
prosecution, raising a serious adverse inference. PW-9 Madanlal is
only a hearsay witness and his statement was recorded after an
unexplained delay.
4.4. The investigation is fundamentally defective. No jeep
allegedly used by the accused was recovered; no tyre marks or
footprints were properly examined; cots and bedding allegedly
stained with blood were not seized; and blood samples were
inconsistently collected. Key documents such as the naksha
mauka and halat mauka are unreliable, with witnesses stating
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
their signatures were taken on blank papers and that the
documents were neither read nor explained to them. Important
witnesses to these documents were not examined, and some
witnesses turned hostile.
4.5. The initial parcha bayan (Ex. P-3) is unreliable. It omits the
names of some accused despite them being close relatives,
contains only vague and omnibus allegations, specifies no
individual role, bears no recorded time, lacks medical certification
of fitness, and is not reflected in the rojnamcha. Subsequent court
testimonies show substantial improvements and exaggerations
over statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
4.6. He would further argue that medical evidence does not
support the prosecution case. In one case, death occurred 18 days
after the incident without a clear cause of death being stated.
Doctors categorically admitted that injuries found were not
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and no
fatal external injuries on vital parts were established. Thus,
medical evidence materially contradicts the ocular version.
4.7. The motive is not proved. No land dispute or pending
litigation involving the accused is established. The prosecution
case appears to be an afterthought, based entirely on interested
and unreliable witnesses, with no cogent chain of circumstances.
4.8. Despite these serious lapses, the trial court ignored material
contradictions, investigative failures, unreliable medical evidence,
and binding precedents cited by the defence, and wrongly
convicted the appellant.
4.9. Accordingly, he urges that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
the benefit of doubt, and the impugned judgment and sentence
dated 01.08.2025 are liable to be quashed and set aside.
4.10. He would thus submit that there are glaring contradictions in
the evidence and notwithstanding the same merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises learned Sessions Judge has convicted
the applicants. He would submit that despite having a good case
on merits, the applicants are languishing in jail. The appeal filed
by them, has though been admitted, but given the heavy
pendency in this Court, there does not appear to be any chance of
it being heard in near future.
4.11. In the parting learned Senior counsel would point out that
one of the co-convicts of the applicants namely Sriram who was
also similarly situated as the applicants herein, but before his bail
plea could be considered he died under incarceration at the age of
70 years.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application stating
that learned Sessions Judge has convicted the applicants in
heinous offence and persual of the judgment would reveal that the
same is based on prior appreciation of evidence and warrants no
interference.
6. Having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of
the record, we are of the view that the application of the convicts
deserve to be allowed. Prima facie the arguments addressed by
learned Senior Counsel (as noted above) appear to have some
substance, but the same can only be thrashed out at the stage of
final hearing of appeal after perusal of the record and the
evidence adduced. No definitive opinion can be expressed at this
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
stage qua the same. However, we are of the view that it is a fit
case for grant of concession of bail.
7. Given that there is no likelihood of final hearing of the appeal
in the near future, keeping the applicants under incarceration
would therefore, may result in travesty of justice in case they
were to succeed in their appeals. Currently appeals of year 2000-
2001 are being listed for final hearing.
8. As already observed, the appellant-applicants were on bail
during the trial. Consequently, without making any observations
on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of
the appellant-applicants, namely, (1) Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram
(2) Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram, during the pendency of the
appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S./389 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner vide judgment
dated 01.08.2025 in Sessions Case No.21/2009
(CIS No.149/2009) against the appellant-applicants, namely, (1)
Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram (2) Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal,
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 learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court
as and when 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.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
2. That if the applicants change the place of residence,
they will give in writing his changed address to the trial
Court as well as to the counsel 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.
10. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating 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 been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case, the
applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge
shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J (ARUN MONGA),J
61-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
