[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Monu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
     D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 2280/2025

                                           in

                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No.403/2025

 Monu S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Gali
 No.06, Raralal Colony, Chak 3E Choti, Sriganganagar, District
 Sriganganagar. At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. RS Charan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. CS Ojha, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

02/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.13/2023

whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer life

imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC and lesser

punishment for the other offences under Sections 307/34,

326/34, 324/34 & 323/34 of IPC along with fine and default

sentence.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 12:13:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-2280/2025]

and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an

erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required

to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application

for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. There exists a fine yet significant distinction between the

grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, and the suspension of sentence under

Section 389 Cr.P.C. While the power exercised under Section

439 CrPC is essentially discretionary in nature and operates

at the pre-conviction stage, the jurisdiction under Section

389 Cr.P.C, though also discretionary, is qualitatively

different and operates post-conviction. Under Section 389

CrPC, the appellate court is vested with a distinct authority;

however, the core consideration before the appellate forum

must necessarily be whether the judgment of conviction and

the consequent order of sentence are sustainable in the eyes

of law.

6. It is trite that the presumption of innocence, which ensures

in favour of an accused, comes to an end upon conviction.

Consequently, while considering an application under Section

389 CrPC, the appellate court is required to examine the

grounds raised in the appeal, and for such purpose, the oral

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 12:13:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-2280/2025]

and documentary evidence must be looked into. Where,

upon appreciation of evidence, it appears that the

conclusions drawn by the trial court may be erroneous, and

where logical, legal and sustainable arguments are advanced

assailing the findings, disclosing a strong and arguable case,

the appellate court is duty-bound to consider such

contentions.

7. Where the sustainability of the conviction itself becomes

debatable, and where the grounds raised in appeal, if

adjudicated in favour of the appellant, disclose a real and

substantial possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it

appears that the conviction may be reversed and the

appellant may be acquitted, the appellate court ought to

suspend the sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

8. Such discretion deserves to be exercised with greater

circumspection in cases where the appellate forum has

sufficient reason to believe that the appeal is not likely to be

taken up for hearing in the near future. In such

circumstances, the court is required to assess whether the

grounds raised are not merely ornamental but possess real

substance and force, for the simple reason that if the appeal

ultimately succeeds, the period of incarceration already

undergone cannot be undone or restituted. In such a

situation, the court should incline towards suspending the

sentence.

9. At the same time, it is well settled that the appellate court is

not required to record any definitive or conclusive finding, as

doing so would amount to forming a pre-determined opinion

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 12:13:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-2280/2025]

on the merits of the appeal at an initial stage, without

affording a full hearing on the appeal itself. It is sufficient if

the court merely indicates that the grounds raised are prima

facie appreciable, logical and legally tenable, that he are

founded upon settled principles of law, and that there

appears to be improper evaluation or assessment of

evidence, or non-consideration / disregard of relevant

statutory provisions.

10. It is also to be borne in mind that in several cases, the

conviction may ultimately be converted to a lesser offence,

or the propriety of the sentence imposed by the trial court,

being within its discretionary domain may also require

reconsideration, particularly whether an adequate and

proportionate sentence was imposed after due hearing on

the point of sentence. These aspects, too, are open to re-

examination at the appellate stage.

11. An appeal, in its true sense, is an extension of the trial, for

the reason that additional evidence may be taken, and the

entire body of evidence is subject to re-appreciation on both

factual and legal parameters. At this stage, the appellate

court is empowasd to set aside the conviction, modify it,

remand the matter, or maintain the judgment, as the case

may be.

12. In the High Court, thousands of criminal appeals have

remained pending for the last 20-30 years, including jail

appeals, where even the likelihood of early hearing does not

appear forthcoming. In such matters, instead of taking an

irreversible risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 12:13:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-2280/2025]

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the present case, it is the fact that no specific or overt has

been attributed upon appellant for either inflicting injuries to

the deceased Lalit or to any other person. A perusal of

Exhibit P-2 making it abundantly clear that as per the

allegations, the principal accused Sonu inflicted a stab injury

on the abdomen of the deceased Lalit and as per the

allegations, three accused namely Bhanwar Lal, Kaliya and

present appellant Monu made intervention in helding victim

Lalit and injuries were also inflicted by them. As a matter of

fact, it is very much evident from postmortem report Exhibit

P-28 that there was one incise wound which has been the

cause of death unfortunately, but no other injuries are found

on the body of the deceased. The submission of defence has

a force that to a great extent the story set out by

prosecution in the FIR is not found worthy of credence rather

belied in light of the postmortem report. A further fact which

persuaded this Court to extend the benefit of bail to the

appellant has been the exoneration of the accused Bhanwar

Lal whose role has been shown equal to the appellant. The

question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has a

substance that the case of appellant and Bhanwar Lal is in

no manner distinguishable rather identical word to word. He

was on bail during the trial, but never misused the liberty

granted to him. All the issues raised are vital in nature and

carry sufficient force and substance, such that if they are

adjudicated in favour of the appellant, the possibility of

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 12:13:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15264-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-2280/2025]

acquittal cannot be ruled out. The grounds raised are

appreciable and necessitate definitive adjudication, which

would require meticulous examination and re-appreciation of

evidence, and there exists a reasonable possibility that such

exercise may ultimately ensure to the benefit of the

appellant.

14. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that

the sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of

which are provided in the first para of this order, against the

appellant-applicant named above 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.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge and whenever

ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the

conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.