Chetan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 14357 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chetan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1911/2025

1.       Chetan Singh S/o Ramansingh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
         Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh,
         raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
2.       Devendra Singh @ Pintu Singh S/o Daulat Singh, Aged
         About    32     Years,       R/o     Chamti        Khera,    P.s.   Kotwali,
         Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh, raj. (At Present Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
3.       Rajesh Kumar @ Monty @ Ponty S/o Shivnarayan, Aged
         About    42     Years,       R/o     Chamti        Khera,    P.s.   Kotwali,
         Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh, raj. (At Present Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
4.       Rajesh S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
         Chamti Khera, P.s. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh,
         raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Zeeshan Ali
                                   Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

16/10/2025

1. The present application has been filed by the applicants

under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') [430(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking suspension of the following

sentence awarded to them by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]

(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred

to as 'trial Court') vide judgment dated 14.06.2024 passed in

Sessions Case No.87/2012 (01/2019):-

S.No Offence Sentence Fine

1. 147 IPC One Year Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in Imprisonment default thereof to further undergo one month additional sentence

2. 323/149 Six Months To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in of IPC Rigorous default thereof to further Imprisonment undergo fifteen Days' additional sentence

3. 302/149 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in of IPC default thereof to further undergo six months' additional sentence

2. Mr. Zeeshan Ali, learned counsel for the applicants argued

that the applicants have been falsely implicated and a case of

apparent accident has been projected as a murder, without there

being any evidence.

3. He contended that if the testimony of PW-1 (Raju Singh),

PW-3 (Om Prakash) and PW-4 (Govind Singh) is read in

conjunction, it is clear that each of the witnesses had their own

version of story to tell and the same does not lead to logical

conclusion as projected by the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that how the

Investigating Officer caught hold of the applicants, is beyond

anybody's comprehension, inasmuch as none of the so called eye-

witnesses could identify the applicants.

5. He submitted that PW-4 (Govind Singh) who happens to be

star witness of the prosecution has clearly stated that he did not

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]

know the accused persons. He further underscored that PW-1

(Raju Singh) has gone to the extent of stating that he had named

the accused persons as told by Govind Singh.

6. Inviting Court's attention towards the injury report and the

statement of Doctor Avinash (PW-21) and his cross-examination,

learned counsel argued that the possibility that Kamlesh died of

accident by falling on his left side cannot be ruled out, more

particularly, when all the persons riding on the motorcycle

including PW-1 (Raju Singh), PW3 (Om Prakash) and PW-4

(Govind Singh) sustained injuries.

7. Learned counsel submitted that had 8-10 people inflicted

injuries upon the deceased, the possibility that he would suffer all

the injuries on a particular side of the body (left side) is

improbable.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that application for

suspension of sentence of co-accused person Roshan has been

allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 in D.B. Criminal

Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1591/2025

and the case of present applicants is not distinguishable from him.

He prayed that the applicants be also enlarged on bail.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the

application for suspension of sentence by submitting that there is

enough evidence against the applicants. He argued that the

applicants are not entitled to any indulgence.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering

the Post Mortem Report and the statement of the Doctor, it is clear

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]

that all the injuries suffered by the deceased were on the left side

of the body. That apart, neither any weapon has been recovered

nor any specific averment as to how and in what manner Kamlesh

was beaten has come on record.

11. We find a number of holes in the investigation and evidence

led. It is intriguing that the informant PW-10 (Rajendra Kumar)

while submitting written complaint had in unequivocal terms

stated that he received information at about 8.30 p.m. that

Kamlesh - the deceased had met with an accident.

12. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted and PW-1

and PW-4 in express terms have admitted that they did not know

the assailants much less their names. Statement of Govind Singh

(PW-4) whose in-laws used to live outside of the village, shows

that he never visited those parts of village, where the applicants -

alleged assailants used to live. The accused persons were shown

to the eye-witnesses near the river, as told by Govind Singh (PW-

4) in his cross-examination. The identification so made cannot be

treated to be an identification in the eye of law.

13. Furthermore, the injuries which the deceased had suffered

(only on the left side of the body) when the prosecution story is,

that 4 or more persons had assaulted coupled with the fact that

none of the eye-witnesses have stated the reason for the injury

and the manner in which the injuries were caused so also the fact

that no weapon has been recovered from any of the accused

persons, we are persuaded to allow the application for suspension

of sentence.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]

14. In view of the discussion foregoing, we feel that the

applicants who are behind the bars for more than 1 year are

entitled to be enlarged on bail and their application for suspension

of sentence merits acceptance.

15. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

by the applicants are hereby allowed. It is ordered that the

sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Cases, Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 14.06.2024

in Sessions Case No.87/2012 (01/2019) against the applicants -

(1) Chetan Singh S/o Ramansingh, (2) Devendra Singh @

Pintu Singh S/o Daulat Singh, (3) Rajesh Kumar @ Monty @

Ponty S/o Shivnarayan and (4) Rajesh S/o Radheshyam

shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal

and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute personal

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for

their appearance in this Court on 17.11.2025 and whenever

ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal 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.

(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.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45551-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1911/2025]

16. 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.

17. 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 application. None of the parties

shall rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the

time of arguing final hearing of the appeal.

                                   (SANGEETA SHARMA),J                                           (DINESH MEHTA),J
                                    29-raksha/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 03:05:29 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)