Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ishwar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:48343) on 11 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:48343]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 976/2025
Ishwar Ram S/o Shri Nimbaram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident
Of Jaroda Kallan, Police Station Merta Road, District Nagaur.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
11/11/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that a
family dispute with regard to partition of the land has been given
a criminal colour by way of lodging false case of rape against the
applicant. He further submits that the prosecutrix is wife of
brother of the applicant, who had expired long back and post that
there was a family dispute between the parties, which has been
supported by the statement of Investigating Officer Rajpal Singh
PW-12. He further submits that the statement of prosecutrix PW-1
itself will reveal that she had admitted the fact of removing the
clothes at her own volition. He further submits that the medical
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:38:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48343] (2 of 4) [SOSA-976/2025]
evidence has not supported the version of prosecution and even
the FSL report did not find any DNA upon the vaginal swab of the
prosecutrix. He further submits that the independent witnesses
Chotu Ram and Geeta have turned hostile and have not supported
the version of prosecution and even the information with regard to
the alleged incident is not clear as no clarity about the same has
been made by PW-3 Prem Kumar or PW-4 Mukesh. He further
submits that the applicant is behind the bars since 09.08.2022
and has completed more than 3 years of the period of
incarceration as against the punishment and sentence of total
period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. He, therefore, implores
this Court to allow the present application for suspension of
sentence.
3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant oppose the application for suspension
of sentence. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that
there is no delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix has
remained firm on her stand with regard to the rape being
committed upon her in her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. or in her statement as PW-1before the learned Trial Court.
He further submits that as per the FSL report, human semen was
detected on the clothes worn by the prosecutrix, which was
handed over to the doctor, and therefore, submits that considering
the nature of allegation, the accused-appellant is not entitled to
any indulgence whatsoever.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the facts that the statement of prosecutrix
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:38:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48343] (3 of 4) [SOSA-976/2025]
wherein, she admitted removing the clothes at her own volition,
there is no corresponding injury or resistance shown as per the
medical report also, the prosecutrix has stated that there was no
incident or even attempt by the applicant prior to the date in
question, the prosecution was trying to conceal the fact of the
dispute existing between the parties with regard to the partition of
the property which has been admitted in so many words by the
Investigating Officer, independent witnesses being the neighbours
i.e. Chotu Ram and Geeta have not supported the stand of the
prosecutrix, and the chances of hearing of appeal in near future
being bleak, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./ Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta,
Nagaur, vide judgment dated 21.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.
134/2022 (57/2022) (State v. Ishwar Ram) against the applicant
Ishwar Ram S/o Shri Nimbaram shall remain suspended till
final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on
bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-, each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 12.12.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:38:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48343] (4 of 4) [SOSA-976/2025]
his/her/their 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.
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/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-applicant(s) does/do not appear before the
trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the
High Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
31-charul/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:38:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
