Richhpal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:48)
2026 Latest Caselaw 38 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 38 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Richhpal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:48) on 5 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:48]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                               No. 1923/2025

                                         In

                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2400/2025

Richhpal S/o Moti Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Khairva, P.s.
Degana District Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail,
Kuchaman)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent
                               Connected With
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                               No. 2017/2025
                                         In
                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2499/2025
Hanuman Ram S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
Of Kherwa, Police Station Degana, District Nagaur (Lodged In
Dist. Jail, Ajmer)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Hanuman Ram, relative of the
                                 appellant
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Shree Ram Choudhary, PP



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

05/01/2026

1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence have

been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:22:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:48] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1923/2025]

of conviction dated 16.09.2025 and order of sentence dated

17.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Kuchaman City, District Deedwana-Kuchaman in Sessions Case

No.126/2021 whereby they were convicted and sentenced to

suffer maximum ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with a

fine Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 307/120-B of IPC and lesser

punishment for the other offences under Sections 332/120-B,

353/120-B, 336/120-B and 427/120-B of IPC.

2. Lawyers are abstaining from appearance in the Court. Shri

Hanuman Ram is present-in-person before this Court. It is

contended by him 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 the relative of the appellants for

releasing the appellants on application for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. The pivotal question which arises for consideration at this

stage is whether the circumstances of the case and the nature of

injuries allegedly sustained by the victim, Fazal Khan, would bring

the case of the prosecution within the four corners of Section 307

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:22:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:48] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1923/2025]

of the IPC, or not. Prima facie, the said issue appears to be

seriously debatable.

5.1 Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reiterate

that for attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC, the

prosecution is required to prima facie establish the following

essential ingredients:-

(i) that the act was done with such intention or

knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if

death had been caused by that act, the offence would

have amounted to murder within the meaning of

Section 300 IPC;

(ii) that there was an overt act committed by the

accused towards the commission of the offence;

(iii) that the nature of the weapon used, the part of the

body aimed at, the severity of the blow, and the nature

of injuries caused are such as to reasonably infer an

intention to cause death; and

(iv) that the offence hinges more upon the mens rea of

the accused rather than the actual consequence of the

act.

5.2 Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court has

carefully gone through the statement of P.W.-7 Dr. Prahlad, as also

the MLC (Ex.-P/5) and other material available on record. A bare

perusal of the medical evidence, coupled with the attendant facts

and circumstances, does not, at this stage, unequivocally

demonstrate the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge

so as to prima facie attract Section 307 IPC.

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 05:22:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:48] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1923/2025]

5.3 The nature of injuries, their situs, and the medical opinion

rendered, when considered in juxtaposition with the prosecution

version, do raise a substantial and arguable doubt as to whether

the act was committed with the intention or knowledge necessary

to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, indeed there is a

force in the appeal, thus, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit

case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-

appellants.

6. Accordingly, the applications 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 for their appearance in this

court on 05.02.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

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