Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramraj vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:24964-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 485/2025
Ramraj S/o Rampal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Lamba Jataan,
District Nagaur (Rajasthan) (Lodged In Sub Jail Merta City)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 237/2025
1. Tilokram S/o Mohanram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Lamba
Jataan, Distt. Nagaur (Rajasthan) (Lodged In Central Jail,
Ajmer)
2. Sunil S/o Tilokram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Lamba
Jataan, Distt. Nagaur (Rajasthan) (Lodged In Central Jail,
Ajmer)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Vyas
Mr. KL Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Bhawat Shrimali &
Mr. Harendra Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
22/05/2025
1. The appellant-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.50/2021:
[2025:RJ-JD:24964-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-485/2025]
Offence u/s Sentence Fine
302/34 read with R.I. Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- and in default of
Section 120-B of for life which to further undergo two
IPC years' S.I.
341 IPC R.I. for one month Rs.500/- and in default of which
to further undergo one week's
imprisonment.
2. The appellant-applicants have preferred these applications
for suspension of sentences under Section 430 B.N.S.S. for
suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and
for release on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants submits that the
incident occurred on 21.06.2021 at about 9:00 PM, when the
deceased Ramawatar was going along with Ramraj in the Pickup
vehicle and when they reached in front of the house of Trilokram,
he was attacked. He submits that Trilokram has been attributed to
the blow of an iron rod to the deceased and his family members
have been attributed to the injuries with lathis. He further submits
that on bare perusal of the postmortem report (Exhibit P-6), it
emanates that there are four injuries: (1) abrasion at right
forearm, (2) lacerated wound at left frontal region (obliquely) (3)
lacerated wound at ear pinna and (4) abrasion at the left forearm;
and the injury which caused death is injury No.2.
3.1. Learned counsel submits that on consistent reading of the
statements of PW-3 and PW-4, it emanates that the role of the
accused Trilokram is to cause injury with an iron rod i.e. injury
No.2 and rest of the injuries were caused by the other persons;
and the accused Ramraj, was the facilitator of the crime by virtue
[2025:RJ-JD:24964-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-485/2025]
of the call records, which are connecting him with the crime. He
further submits that the over implication in the case is writ large
and the connection of the accused has not been properly
established.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant opposes the applications for suspension of sentences.
They submit that from consistent reading of the version of PW-3
and PW-4, it is clear that the incident had occurred where the
specific injury causing death (injury No.2) in the postmortem
report has been caused by the accused Trilokram, whereas Ramraj
had only facilitated the crime by persuading the deceased to come
with him and put him at the peril of the co-accused, who were in
constant touch with him. They further submit that the injury
attributed to the accused Sunil is also writ large.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court finds that the role of accused Trilokram in causing
the injury No.2 with an iron rod is supported by the statements of
PW-3 and PW-4 and also by the postmortem report. Rest of the
injuries even if taken into account, do not show as if there was
any consistent effort to cause death of the deceased as there are
two abrasions at the forearms and lacerated wounds on the ear
pinna. The role of the accused Ramraj, which has been based
upon the call details as well as being the person who persuaded
the deceased to come with him and then his running away has
[2025:RJ-JD:24964-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-485/2025]
been considered as his direct involvement in the crime by the
learned trial court. The direct aggravating role is only of Trilokram.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the sentences of the
accused-appellants Ramraj S/o Rampal and Sunil S/o Tilokram
during the pendency of the appeal. However, this Court is not
inclined to suspend the sentence of the accused-appellant -
Trilokram at this stage. Thus, the D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension
Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.237/2025, stands dismissed
qua the applicant-appellant Trilokram S/o Mohanram.
8. Accordingly, the D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No.485/2025 and D.B. Criminal Misc.
Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.237/2025 (qua
the appellant - Sunil S/o Tilokram) are allowed and it is ordered
that substantive sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Merta in Sessions Case No.50/2021, against the appellant-
applicants (1) Ramraj S/o Rampal (2) Sunil S/o Tilokram,
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals
and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute 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 on 23.07.2025 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24964-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-485/2025]
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.
9. 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 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
said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
29-30-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
