Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39800) on 8 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39800]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1111/2025
Chetan Ram S/o Gopalram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Bhadwa, Tehsil Loonkaransar P.s Loonkaransar District Bikaner.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Biakner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
08/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the
appellant-applicant has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 458, 307, 325 & 323 of IPC and the sentence imposed is
simple imprisonment for a period of seven years. Learned counsel
for the appellant-applicant further submits that appellant-applicant
has remained behind the bars for a period of almost one year and
ten months out of total period of imprisonment of seven years
imposed upon him. He further submits that out of the four
injuries, only one was shown to be grievous in nature and rest of
the injuries were simple in nature. While relying upon the
judgment passed by this Court in case of "Soma Meena v. State
[2025:RJ-JD:39800] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1111/2025]
of Rajasthan" 2020 (1) Criminal Law Reporter (Raj) 124, he
submits that since the radiologist was not examined nor x-ray
exhibited, therefore, the opinion of the Doctor based upon the
report could not be relied upon for convicting the appellant-
applicant. He further submits that the Doctor has nowhere opined
that the injury was dangerous to life and has rather stated that
the injury could have been occurred by accident also. He further
asserts that there is recovery of a lathi and there is no
corresponding bloodstain shown in the FSL report. He thus,
submits that the appellant-applicant is entitled for suspension of
sentence.
3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and submits that three
injuries near head region have been inflicted by the appellant-
applicant, therefore, his intention to murder the complainant was
very much clear. He further asserts that the Doctor has opined
injury no.2 was grievous in nature and that by itself was sufficient
to convict the appellant-applicant. Therefore, the application in
question deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both
the sides and perused the record. Admittedly, as per the opinion of
the Doctor, injury no.2 was found to be grievous in nature and
there is no assertion by the Doctor during his examination-in-chief
also that the injury in question was dangerous to life. This coupled
with the fact that the x-ray was neither exhibited nor the
radiologist was examined, the opinion based upon the so called x-
ray report could not be relied upon prima facie for convicting the
appellant-applicant. Furthermore, considering the fact that the
[2025:RJ-JD:39800] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1111/2025]
appellant-applicant has remained behind the bars for almost one
year and 10 months and was on bail during the course of trial and
that the chances of hearing of appeal in near future are bleak, this
Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the
sentence awarded to the accused appellant-applicant.
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 learned Session Judge Bikaner, Rajasthan vide
judgment dated 29.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.180/2018,
against the appellant-applicant Chetan Ram S/o Gopalram shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he
shall be released on bail, provided he executes 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 his 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.
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the appellant-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
appellant-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order
shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc.
[2025:RJ-JD:39800] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1111/2025]
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 appellant-applicant does 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
130-Love/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
