Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Himmataram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 750/2025
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 78/2025
Maluram S/o Jaisaram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 8 KPM
(Dhandhada) Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sri
Ganganagar
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 653/2025
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 77/2025
1. Omprakash S/o Himtaram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 8 KPM
(Dhandhra) Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
2. Annaram S/o Birbalram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 8 KPM
(Dhandhra) Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
(3) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 740/2025
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 78/2025
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:59:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (2 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
1. Himmataram S/o Jaisaram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 8 KPM
(Dhandhada) Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Udaram S/o Jaisaram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 8 KPM
(Dhandhada) Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sri
Ganganagar.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind
Mr. Suresh Nehra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
07/10/2025
1. These three applications have been filed by the applicants
under section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking suspension of following sentences awarded to them by the
learned Sessions Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'trial court') vide judgment dated
12.02.2025 passed in Session Case No. 27/2005:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 148 IPC Three Years' To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
Rigorous default thereof to undergo
Imprisonment additional one month's simple
imprisonment.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (3 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
2. 324/149 Three Years' To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
IPC Rigorous default thereof to undergo
Imprisonment additional one month's simple
imprisonment.
3. 325/149 Seven Years' To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in
IPC Rigorous default thereof to undergo
Imprisonment additional two months' simple
imprisonment.
4. 326/149 Ten Years' Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in
IPC Imprisonment default thereof to undergo
additional two months' simple
imprisonment
5. 450/149 Ten Years' Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC Imprisonment default thereof to undergo
additional three months'
simple imprisonment
6. 307/149 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to undergo
additional three months'
simple imprisonment
2. The facts leading to lodging of the First Information Report
(No. 164/2004) as narrated by the complainant - Ram Lal were
that the applicants armed with lathis, Kasiya and axe (Kulhari)
came to his dhani on 28.09.2004 at around 10:00 pm and
assaulted him and his wife Kalawati, while they were sleeping. It
was asserted in the FIR that the applicants Annaram, Omprakash
and Udaram were having lathis in their hands, while Himmataram
and Maluram were armed with axe and with the help of these
weapons, they caused various injuries on the person including
head of both the complainant and his wife Kalawati.
3. Mr. D.S. Thind and Mr. Suresh Nehra, learned counsel for the
applicants at the outset submitted that there was dispute
regarding share of the ancestral land between all the brothers and
sisters; out of which six were on one side while Ram Lal was on
other side. He contended that Ram Lal was quarrelsome by nature
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (4 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
and has been demanding more land out of the ancestral property
and though the incident took place out of sudden altercation near
the water course that too in relation to their share of water,
however, the police and the investigating officer have given wrong
colour to the incident and protrayed the incident to have taken
place in the 'dhani' of the complainant Ram Lal.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the entire story has been
expanded beyond proportion and though the injuries were not at
all serious in nature, they have been shown to be grievous, which
is evident from the fact that Ram Lal, who claimed to be injured
himself went to lodge the written complaint at around 12:45 a.m.
in the late hours of 28.09.2004 instead of rushing to the hospital.
Inviting Court's attention towards the note put by the police on
the written complaint, learned counsel submitted that if Ram Lal
was so brutally assaulted as alleged, he could not have thought of
going to the police station before going to the hospital.
5. In this regard, Mr. Thind invited Court's attention towards the
documents, and submitted that the FIR was lodged at 12:45 a.m.,
whereas the complainant reached the hospital as late as at 2:45
a.m. with his wife, who too was injured.
6. Learned counsel argued that the investigating officer has
connived with the complainant party and had tried to prove the
incident and the injuries out of proportion. He argued that the
injury reports reveal that the injuries caused to Kalawati even on
head was not grievous in nature, as reported in the injury report
and the injuries allegedly caused to Ram Lal too were not life
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (5 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
threatening, as can be discerned from the fact that he went to the
hospital after around four hours of the incident.
7. Learned counsel argued that the trial court has wrongly
convicted the applicants for the offence under section 307/149 of
Indian Penal Code, completely overlooking the nature of the
injuries and the evidence on record.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of axe and
Kasiya was not proved properly, inasmuch as, the sole witness of
the recovery, namely Dalip Kumar (P.W.8) had turned hostile. He
argued that since the recovery of weapon(s) has not been proved,
the applicants' conviction for the offence under section 307/149
IPC is not sustainable.
9. Without prejudice to above submissions, learned counsel
argued that the applicants have faced the trial since 2004 and
facing trial for such a long period itself is a sort of punishment,
therefore, applications seeking suspension of sentence filed by the
applicants be allowed, as hearing of the appeal will take
substantial time.
10. Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the applications for suspension of sentence. He submitted that so
far as applicant - Himmataram is concerned, he has criminal
antecedents, as two more cases have been registered for the
offence under section 307 IPC against him and prayed that no
indulgence be granted to the applicants.
11. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant on the other hand submitted that the applicants were
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (6 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
the aggressors, who came to the dhani of the complainant party
armed with weapons, late in the evening (10:00 p.m.) with a view
to cause grievous injuries. He submitted that the applicants had
clear motive and preparation to kill the complainant so as to grab
their part of the land.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. On perusal of the site plan (Exhibit-2A), we are prima-facie
satisfied that the applicants were the aggressors, who came to the
dhani of the complainant - Ram Lal late in the evening (at 10:00
p.m.) without there being any immediate provocation. Their
intention either to murder or to cause grievous injuries was writ
large.
14. The trial court has not simply relied upon the site inspection
report, but has also recorded a finding that blood stains were
found in the dhani of the complainant Ram Lal.
15. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicants
that the incident took place in field near the water course is
concerned, as stated in the FIR (which the applicants had lodged
being No. 163/2004), it is noteworthy that the complainant herein
Ram Lal and his wife Kalawati have been acquitted. Hence, though
the appeal against the acquittal is tagged together, but at this
juncture, the finding that the incident took place in the dhani of
the complainant Ram Lal is to be given more credence.
16. Adverting to the injuries, which have been caused to Ram Lal
and Kalawati; it is pertinent that the injuries though multiple in
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (7 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
number, but have been reported to be simple. But, so far as injury
no.1 admeasuring 6.5 x 0.5cm inflicted upon Kalawati and injury
no.1 admeasuring 8 x 0.5cm inflicted upon the complainant Ram
Lal are concerned, both were inflicted on head with sharp edged
weapon most likely an axe, which has been recovered from the
applicant - Maluram. The applicant - Himmataram was also
alleged to be having Kasiya in his hands, when the applicants-
accused persons came to the dhani of the complainant.
17. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicants
that the recovery of weapon has not been proved is concerned,
such aspect is required to be considered at the time of final
hearing of the appeal.
18. Ignoring the circumstance of recovery, the injuries inflicted
upon the complainant - Ram Lal and his wife Kalawati is indicative
of the kind and nature of the assault and its gravity.
19. In view of the aforesaid, so far as applicants namely
Himmataram and Maluram, who were armed with Kasiya and axe
are concerned, their preparedness with axe and Kasiya and the
fact that applicant - Himmataram is having criminal antecedents,
disentitle them from claiming any indulgence at this stage.
20. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
on behalf of the applicants Maluram (D.B. Cr. Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application No. 750/2025) and Himmataram (co-
applicant in D.B. Cr. Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.
740/2025) are rejected.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (8 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
21. So far as other applicants are concerned, though they came
with common object, but considering that the weapons, which
they were having and recovered from them were lathis and also
because they have suffered a prolonged trial of about 21 years
and given that hearing of their appeals is likely to take substantial
time, we are of the view that their applications seeking suspension
of sentence deserve a slightly different treatment.
22. The applications seeking suspension of sentence filed on
behalf of the applicants namely Omprakash, Annaram (D.B. Cr.
Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 653/2025) and
Udaram (D.B. Cr. Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.
740/2025) deserves to be and are hereby allowed.
23. It is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in
Session Case No.27/2005 against the applicants - (1)
Omprakash S/o Himtaram; (2) Annaram S/o Birbalram; and
(3) Udaram S/o Jaisaram shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the respective appeals and they shall be released on
bail, provided they execute a personal bond each in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
Court on 07.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal(s) on the conditions indicated below:-
(i) That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of
January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43897-DB] (9 of 9) [SOSA-750/2025]
(ii) That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will
give in writing their 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.
24. 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 related 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 be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicants does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
25. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in
relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicants are prima-facie
opinion considering the material to the extent necessary for the
purpose of consideration of instant applications. None of the
parties shall rely upon the findings or observations made herein at
the time of arguing or final hearing of the appeal(s).
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
18-Mak/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 06:09:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
