Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravikant vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:44052-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1505/2025
In
D. B. Criminal Appeal No.79/2025
Ravikant S/o Mangi Lal, aged About 30 Years, Dammani Chowk,
P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner.
(Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
and Ms. Sampati Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. S. Ojha, PP
Mr. Sanjay Mathur, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
08/10/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code [430(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking suspension of
the following sentences awarded to him by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, No.7, Bikaner, District Bikaner vide judgment
dated 13.02.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.21/2020 :-
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302 IPC Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-;
for life. in default thereof to further
undergo two years of
Rigorous Imprisonment
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:16:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44052-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1505/2025]
2. 4/25 of Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
Arms Act Imprisonment. default thereof to further
undergo two months of
Rigorous Imprisonment
2. Mr. Choudhary, learned Senior counsel submitted that the
story put forth by the prosecution has been totally demolished by
none other than prosecution's own witnesses and therefore, the
trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant - applicant
for the offence under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
3. Learned Senior counsel argued that true it is, that the
complainant - Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) has supported the
prosecution's case but if the testimony of other witnesses
produced by the prosecution, namely Abijeet Vyas (PW-2),
Purushottam (PW-5), Radheyshyam (PW-6), Atmaram (PW-7) and
Karan Pareek (PW-8) are taken into account, it is apparent that all
of them have denied the very presence of the complainant -
Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) at the scene of occurrence of the incident.
4. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the only evidence that
remains against the appellant - applicant is the recovery of blood
stained knife, on the basis whereof the conviction of the applicant
cannot be sustained.
5. He argued that even the recovery of the knife has not been
proved by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. In
relation to the testimony of Rameshwar Lal (PW-3), learned Senior
counsel argued that he has improved his version altogether,
inasmuch as in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex/D-2), he did not claim himself to
be present on the scene, at the time of occurrence of the alleged
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:16:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44052-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1505/2025]
offence, whereas in his Court statement, he has stated himself to
be present at the time of incident. He added that PW-3 has gone
to the extent of proving the presence of Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) on
the scene, simply in order to lend support to a false story.
6. Learned Senior Counsel contended that Rameshwar Lal (PW-
3) has made up and improved his version to such an extent, that
it not only raises question but belies his trustworthiness.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the motive or prior
animosity of the appellant - applicant. Having said so, learned
Senior Counsel argued that the appellant is a student and has
remained on bail during trial and hence, his application for
suspension of sentence be allowed.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposed Mr. Choudhary's submissions
while emphasizing that the appellant - applicant has not been able
to raise any doubt so far as testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) is
concerned. They argued that regardless of the deposition of other
witnesses namely Abijeet Vyas (PW-2), Purushottam (PW-5),
Radheyshyam (PW-6), Atmaram (PW-7) and Karan Pareek (PW-8),
so long as his testimony (Ramesh Kumar) has remained
unshaken, the applicant cannot get any relief.
9. They submitted that indisputably the blood stained knife has
been recovered from the house of the appellant - applicant
pursuant to his information and the FSL report also showed that
the blood group of the deceased matched with the stains found on
the knife.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:16:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44052-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1505/2025]
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the record carefully, we find that Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) has
remained firm, even during detailed cross examination by the
defence counsel. He did not fumble rather stuck to his version of
the story, which is in line with the prosecution case - his testimony
cannot be discarded, at least at the stage of considering
application for suspension of sentence.
11. It is one of the few cases, where almost all the prosecution
witnesses have been won over - it is surprising that they have
gone to the extent of supporting the case of the accused, much
farther than being hostile. At this stage, testimony of even one
eye witness, who has remained consistent with the prosecution
story is enough to deny the benefit of bail.
12. Indisputably blood stained knife was recovered pursuant to
the information given by appellant - applicant under section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act which, was concealed under the bed of
the appellant's room. Said room was appellant's own room, hence
the weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the
appellant and the blood group found on the knife was same as
that of the deceased.
13. In a premeditated murder like the one in hand, which was
committed in a crowded market that too in the evening of month
of May, if the accused rather convict who had the audacity to
commit culpable homicide and then win over the witnesses, is
enlarged, it will create an atmosphere of fear in the society and
youth will be impelled to win over the witnesses after the felony.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:16:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44052-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1505/2025]
14. Hence, even if the applicant is able to make out some
arguable points, any indulgence, at this stage would spoil the
delicate balance between the societal harmony and an individual's
right to liberty.
15. The application for suspension of sentence is, therefore,
rejected.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
145-Arun/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:16:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
