Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhood Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39738) on 8 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39738]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1340/2025
1. Dhood Singh S/o Deep Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Beethnok, P.s. Kolayat, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner. (Lodged
In Central Jail Bikaner)
2. Gajje Singh S/o Deep Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Beethnok, P.s. Kolayat, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner. (Lodged
In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Shanker Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
08/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that,
as far as the present case is concerned, the appellants-applicants
have been convicted for offences under Sections 341, 307/34, and
323/34 of the IPC, and the punishment imposed is seven years'
rigorous imprisonment. He further submits that, as per the opinion
of the medical jurist, the injuries were described as grievous in
nature but not dangerous to life; therefore, the offence under
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 10:38:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39738] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1340/2025]
Section 307 IPC is not made out. He also submits that, according
to the statement of Dr. Arvind (PW-6), it is evident that the injury
report and medical opinion were based on the CT scan and
treatment documents of one Bhol Singh, aged about 50 years,
whereas the name of the injured person is Bhanwar Singh, who
was 55 years old on the date the injury report was prepared. He
thus asserts that the medical opinion was based on the report of
another individual, and therefore, the conclusion that the injury
was grievous in nature is unreliable. Consequently, the conviction
cannot be sustained on the basis of such a statement. He further
submits that out of the three accused, one Sohan Singh has been
acquitted by the trial Court while not considering his involvement
in the case. In these circumstances, he prays that the application
for suspension of sentence filed by the appellants-applicants be
allowed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence and submits that the doctor has clearly
opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature (though
not dangerous to life). Considering the circumstances in which the
incident occurred, it is evident that the intention of the accused
was to murder the complainant-injured. He thus submits that,
looking to the nature of the offence, the sentence awarded to the
appellants does not deserve to be suspended.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both sides, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court observes that, as per the statement of PW-6
Dr. Arvind, the medical opinion was based on the CT scan report
and treatment documents. It is admitted that the treatment
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 10:38:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39738] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1340/2025]
record and CT scan report pertained to one Bhol Singh, aged 50
years, and did not name the injured Bhanwar Singh, who was 55
years old on the date the injury report was prepared.
Furthermore, considering the facts that the appellants have
remained behind bars for almost six months, the recovery of the
lathi was not bloodstained, and that there is no likelihood of the
appeal being heard in the near future, this Court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the
accused appellants-applicants.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6,
Bikaner, vide judgment dated 10.07.2025 in Sessions Case
No.04/2019 (CIS No.97/2015) against the appellants-applicants
namely; (1) Dhood Singh S/o Deep Singh and (2) Gajje
Singh S/o Deep Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal
of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail,
provided each of them execute a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
court on 08.10.2025 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
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.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 10:38:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39738] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1340/2025]
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the appellants-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
appellants-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 appellants-applicants 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
255-mohit/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 10:38:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
