Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suman vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 1467/2025
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 193/2025
Suman D/o Shri Bhawar Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident of
Kilipura Tehsil, Tarnagar Police Station, Sahawa, District Churu
(District Jail, Churu)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Ms. Vijay Raj Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor
Ms. Anjali Kaushik, for the
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
06/10/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under
section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking suspension of following sentence awarded to her by the
learned Sessions Judge, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as
'trial court') vide judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed in Session
Case No. 09/2023:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 328/34 Ten Years' Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC Imprisonment default thereof to undergo
additional one year rigorous
imprisonment.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1467/2025]
2. 302/34 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to undergo
additional one year rigorous
imprisonment.
3. 120-B Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to undergo
additional one year rigorous
imprisonment.
2. Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the trial court has convicted the applicant absolutely
on flimsy grounds and in spite of the fact that no other
incriminating evidence against her was available, she has been
convicted solely on the basis of recovery of the wrapper of
medicine 'Silent Plus' and the Kadhai, which was available in the
kitchen itself.
3. He argued that the entire prosecution story was that pre-
cooked food was brought by the co-accused Onkar Lal in a tiffin
and the same was eaten by Babulal so also by Manoj (P.W.1),
whereafter Babulal died while Manoj (P.W.1) got sick on account of
poisoning.
4. Learned counsel took the Court through the testimony of
various persons, who were present at the time of consumption of
food, namely Mukesh (P.W.2), Vinod Kumar (P.W.8) and Bulkesh
Kumar @ Lokesh (P.W.11) and highlighted that none of the
persons present at the place of occurrence had even mentioned
the name of the applicant. He submitted that two of the above
referred witnesses have even stated that when the co-accused
Onkarlal brought the pre-cooked food from a restaurant, the
applicant - Suman had gone up-stairs to sleep.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1467/2025]
5. He argued that since the applicant was living happily with
Mukesh (P.W.2), she had no reason to murder the deceased and
the testimony of Chandratan, wife of Manoj Kumar (P.W.1) cannot
be believed, as she had every reason to falsely implicate the
present applicant, who was living with Manoj Kumar (P.W.1).
6. Learned counsel argued that the recovery of the wrapper of
medicine so also the recovery of utensil (aluminium kadhai) from
the kitchen in which food remains were found, is also doubtful,
more particularly when the prosecution story is not that the food
was even heated before being served by Suman or by anyone
else.
7. Learned counsel submitted that at the best, the co-accused
Onkarlal who owed a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs to Manoj Kumar (P.W.1)
and who brought the food, could have had any motive to murder
but so far as the applicant is concerned, she hardly had any
motive.
8. He further submitted that the application for suspension of
sentence of Onkarlal, who was co-accused in the present case has
been accepted and, therefore, there is no reason available for
which, the applicant, who is behind the bars since 12.11.2022 be
kept incarcerated.
9. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
argued that the trial court has rightly convicted the applicant
taking into account the viscera report which clearly gave positive
test for presence of Benzodiazepine Tranquillizing drug and Organo
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1467/2025]
Chloro Insecticides, as the recovery of utensil with the food
remains was made at her instance.
10. Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel for the complainant
vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
carefully.
12. If the prosecution story as portrayed is taken into account,
the applicant Suman came into picture due to recovery of utensil
from the kitchen, in which food remains of the poisonous food
were found and the recovery of empty wrapper of medicine.
13. 'Kadhai' was recovered from the kitchen and the wrappers
were lying on the top of fridge in abandoned condition. In absence
of any other incriminating material, recovery alone cannot form
the basis of conviction and it cannot be said that the prosecution
has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable
doubt as has been held in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2769.
14. All the persons present at the time of consumption of the
food in unison have stated that Onkarlal brought the pre-cooked
food, which was eaten by the deceased and Manoj. Most of them
have deposed that when the food was brought and being eaten by
the deceased, Suman had already gone to sleep. Nobody has
deposed that the food, which Onkarlal brought was taken to the
kitchen for heating or otherwise.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1467/2025]
15. That apart, since the person who brought the pre-cooked
food or the person, who allegedly mixed the poison in the food
namely Onkarlal has been enlarged, there is no reason to keep the
present applicant (a female), behind the bars who was arrested on
12.11.2022.
16. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicant is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Churu in Session
Case No.09/2023 against the applicant - Suman D/o Shri
Bhawar Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she execute 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
her appearance in this Court on 06.11.2025 and whenever ordered
to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:-
(i) That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of
January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(ii) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will
give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to
the counsel in the High Court.
(iii) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in
writing their changed address to the trial Court.
17. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43735-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1467/2025]
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 does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
18. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in
relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicant are prima-facie
opinion considering the material to the extent necessary for the
purpose of consideration of instant application. None of the parties
shall rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the
time of arguing or final hearing of the appeal.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
14-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:23:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
