Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Panna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 November, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:47678-DB]                   (1 of 6)                       [SOSA-1790/2025]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1790/2025

Panna Ram S/o Sh. Sheoji Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Dhani Mamdoli, Kalwa-Bada, Tehsil And P.s. Makrana,
Dist. Nagaur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.        Bhagu Ram S/o Sh. Suja Ram, R/o Village Dhani
          Mamdoli, Kalwa-Bada, Tehsil And P.s. Makrana, Dist.
          Nagaur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Gopal Sandu
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

06/11/2025

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge Makrana, District Nagaur in

Sessions Case No.18/2020:

     Offence                Sentence                                Fine
302 IPC             Life Imprisonment              Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo six
                                                   months' S.I.
201 of IPC          One          year Rs.1,000/- and in default of
                    Imprisonment      which to further undergo one
                                      month's S.I.




                         (Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 10:18:42 AM)

 [2025:RJ-JD:47678-DB]                   (2 of 6)                      [SOSA-1790/2025]

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred an application under

Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences during the

pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.09.2019, the

complainant, who is the grandson of the deceased Prakash, lodged

a report at Police Station Makrana, alleging that the deceased had

received a phone call and thereafter left home. When he did not

return even after several hours, his family members became

anxious. On the following evening, i.e., 27.09.2019 at about 07:00

PM, the present appellant, Panna Ram, informed that a dead body

was lying on Borawar-Sabalpura Road near Pratap Ji ki Dhani.

Upon reaching the spot, the police recovered the body, which was

later identified as that of the deceased Prakash. During

investigation, the appellant was arrested, and on the basis of the

circumstantial and electronic evidence collected, including CCTV

footage from the toll plaza showing the appellant and the

deceased together around 10:28 PM on the night of 26.09.2019,

and an alleged extra-judicial confession, the charge-sheet was

filed. The trial culminated in the conviction and sentencing of the

appellant as indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the

earlier application for suspension of sentence, bearing No.

1583/2023, was not pressed, the appellant now seeks to advance

the present application on merits. Upon being permitted, learned

counsel submits that the complainant, who happens to be the

grandson of the deceased, lodged a report on 26.09.2019, alleging

that the deceased, Prakash, had received a telephonic call and

thereafter left his residence. When the family members made

(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 10:18:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47678-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1790/2025]

enquiries around 10:00 PM on the same night, the deceased

informed them that he would return within half an hour; however,

when he did not return, suspicion arose regarding his well-being.

Subsequently, on the next evening, i.e., 27.09.2019 at about

07:00 PM, the present appellant is alleged to have informed that a

dead body was lying on Borawar-Sabalpura Road near Pratap Ji ki

Dhani, pursuant to which the police reached the spot and

recovered the body of the deceased.

4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction

of the appellant rests solely upon the "last seen together"

circumstance, and that there is no direct evidence connecting the

appellant with the commission of the alleged offence. It is

contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt, as the testimonies of material witnesses,

particularly PW-1 Nagender Singh, PW-2 Sushil Puri, PW-9 Ganesh

Ram, and PW-20 Jitender Singh, are inconsistent and

contradictory on material particulars. Learned counsel further

assails the reliance placed upon the alleged extra-judicial

confession, submitting that the same is inherently weak,

uncorroborated, and unworthy of reliance.

4.2. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that PW-1's

statement is inherently inconsistent, while he claims to have seen

the appellant and the deceased together, he also admits not

knowing them earlier, yet identifies them by name. The alleged

motive of monetary gain has not been substantiated, as no ATM

card, cash, or related article was recovered.

(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 10:18:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47678-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1790/2025]

4.3. Learned counsel thus submits that the "last seen" theory,

being the sole basis of conviction, cannot sustain in the absence of

corroborative evidence such as recovery, motive, or credible

witness testimony. It is therefore prayed that, pending disposal of

the appeal, the sentence awarded to the appellant be suspended.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the

application for suspension of sentence and submits that the death

of the deceased occurred within approximately two hours after the

appellant and the deceased were last seen together, as captured

in the toll plaza CCTV footage recorded at 10:28 PM on

26.09.2019. It is contended that the "last seen" circumstance

stands duly corroborated by electronic as well as other supporting

evidence brought on record. Learned Public Prosecutor further

submits that it was the appellant himself who, though under the

guise of providing information, furnished the lead that directly

resulted in the recovery of the dead body nearly twenty-four hours

after the incident. It is, therefore, urged that there exists no

justifiable ground to revisit the earlier order on suspension of

sentence, which had been dismissed as not pressed by learned

counsel for the appellant.

6. Upon a careful consideration of the overall facts and

circumstances, as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of

both sides, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly

placed reliance upon the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV

footage from the toll plaza, which clearly depicts the appellant and

the deceased together at around 10:28 PM on 26.09.2019, barely

an hour or two prior to the death of the deceased. The said

(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 10:18:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47678-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1790/2025]

footage, coupled with other circumstantial evidence, reasonably

supports the "last seen together" circumstance forming the

backbone of the prosecution case.

6.1. The evidence adduced by the prosecution and duly

appreciated by the learned Trial Court, particularly the testimonies

of PW-1, PW-3, PW-9, and PW-20, though alleged to be

inconsistent by the defence, remains substantially consistent and

corroborative on the material aspect that the appellant and the

deceased were last seen together, sharing alcohol and food shortly

before the incident. The motive suggested by the prosecution,

relating to a monetary transaction or relationship between the

appellant and the deceased, also finds partial support in the

evidentiary record and lends further plausibility to the prosecution

version.

6.2. As regards the extra-judicial confession, which was sought to

be discredited by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court

notes that the statement of PW-5, through whom the confession is

alleged to have been made, appears coherent, consistent, and

duly corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Hence, at this

stage, no prima facie infirmity is discernible in the appreciation of

evidence by the Trial Court.

7. In light of the foregoing analysis and considering the gravity

of the offence, the nature of the evidence relied upon, and the

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, this Court is not

inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-

appellant by the learned Trial Court at this stage.