[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15163) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15163]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2396/2025
1. Omprakash Alias Sheshkaran S/o Sh. Prithvi Raj, Aged
About 37 Years, 33-Np, P.s. Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar. (Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar)
2. Subhash S/o Sh. Ramlal, Aged About 52 Years, 33-Np,
P.s. Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar. (Lodged In
Central Jail Sriganganagar)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2389/2025
Krishan Lal S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 33 Np Police
Station, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu
Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
02/04/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:28:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15163] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2396/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that
the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants-applicants
primarily on the basis of the statement of the Doctor, whereas the
Radiologist, on whose report the nature of injury was determined,
was not examined before the learned Trial Court. It is contended
that such non-examination goes to the root of the matter. He
submits that as per the FSL report, no blood matching of the
injured was found on the weapons allegedly recovered from the
appellants-applicants. He also submits that the appellants-
applicants were on bail during the course of trial and have already
undergone approximately eight months of incarceration out of the
total sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to
them. He further submits that there is a substantial improvement
in the version of the injured, inasmuch as, the initial allegation
was only with regard to the appellants-applicants carrying sticks
and rods, and there was no allegation of use or possession of any
sharp-edged weapon. He also asserts that and there are bleak
chances of hearing of the appeal in near future. He, therefore,
implores this Court to allow the suspension of sentence application
of the appellants-applicants.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for suspension of sentence.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court
finds that there is a material improvement in the version of the
complainant/injured. Further, for determining the nature of injury,
the learned Trial Court has relied upon the opinion of the Doctor,
which was admittedly based upon the X-ray report; however, the
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:28:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15163] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2396/2025]
Radiologist, who prepared the said report, has not been examined.
As per the statement of Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra (PW-5), he had
opined the nature of injury on the basis of the X-ray report
received by him. In such circumstances, examination of the
Radiologist was essential to conclusively establish the nature of
injury, particularly when all the injuries were stated to be on non-
vital parts of the body. Also considering the fact that the
appellants-applicants have already undergone about eight months
of imprisonment out of the total sentence of five years' rigorous
imprisonment, that they remained on bail during the course of
trial, and chances of hearing of the appeal in near future being
bleak, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.1,
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, vide judgment dated
04.12.2025 in Sessions Case No.09/2008 (CIS No.43/2014)
against the appellants-applicants; namely, (1) Omprakash Alias
Sheshkaran S/o Sh. Prithvi Raj (2) Subhash S/o Sh. Ramlal
& (3) Krishan Lal S/o Ram Lal, shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail,
provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
court on 05.05.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:28:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15163] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2396/2025]
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 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
150-151-devrajP/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:28:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
