[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Homla vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5270) on 29 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:5270]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1533/2025

1.       Homla S/o Dalheng, Aged About 65 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
2.       Deva S/o Lalji, Aged About 60 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
3.       Punja S/o Dharji, Aged About 70 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
4.       Kachru S/o Hakru, Aged About 56 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
5.       Huka Alias Hukla S/o Mogji, Aged About 49 Years, Mediya
         Katara,    Police       Station   Ambapura,              District   Banswara
         (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Banswara)
6.       Shankar S/o Barji, Aged About 45 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
7.       Henga S/o Lalu, Aged About 45 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
8.       Ramesh S/o Bheru, Aged About 50 Years, Mediya Katara,
         Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara (Lodged In
         Dist. Jail, Banswara)
9.       Roop Lal S/o Maneng, Aged About 57 Years, Mediya
         Katara,    Police       Station   Ambapura,              District   Banswara
         (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Banswara)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Devendra Sanwalot
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA



                       (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)
                      (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:35:55 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:5270]                        (2 of 7)                        [SOSA-1533/2025]


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

29/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned .Sessions Judge,

Banswara in Sessions Case No.168/2020 whereby they have

been convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum

imprisonment of 6 years along with a fine of Rs.6,000/-

under Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine

Animal (Prohibition and Slaughter and Regulation of

Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and lesser

punishment for the other offence under Section 4 read with

Section 8 of the Act.

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

the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal

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. The appellants were on bail during trial and did not

misuse the liberty so granted to them; hearing of the appeal

is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for

suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

accused-applicants for releasing the appellant on application

for suspension of sentence.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5270] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1533/2025]

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 CrPC. 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 CrPC, 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 enures 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

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.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5270] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1533/2025]

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

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 they are

founded upon settled principles of law, and that there

appears to be improper evaluation or assessment of

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5270] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1533/2025]

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 empowered to set aside the conviction, modify it,

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

may be.

12. In this 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

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the present case, Having considered the submissions

advanced, and on a prima facie appraisal of the impugned

judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants

have made out a case for suspension of sentence. The

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5270] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1533/2025]

appeal raises arguable issues touching upon the manner of

arrest, the reliability of recoveries allegedly effected from an

open and accessible place, absence of independent civilian

witnesses at the time of alleged apprehension, and certain

inconsistencies emerging from the ocular and documentary

evidence, which shall require detailed examination at the

time of final hearing. The appellants are behind the bars

since 01.08.2025. 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

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-applicants named above 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.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:-

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:30:16 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5270] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1533/2025]

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 changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.