[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sampat Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:685) on 7 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:685]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 2175/2025

                                         In

                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2611/2025

1.       Lokesh S/o Sanwarmal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/
         o Jyoti Nagar, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Presently
         Lodged In District Jail Bhilwara)
2.       Babu Lal S/o Nandalal Balai, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
         Shyam Vihar Shastri Nagar, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
         (Presently Lodged In District Jail Bhilwara)
3.       Vinod S/o Nandlal Meghvanshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
         Shyam      Vihar       Colony,p.s      Kotwali,          District   Bhilwara,
         Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail Bhilwara)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Babulal Nangawat S/o Khyali Lal, R/o 12, Mahaveer Marg,
         Shastri Nagar,, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents
                                Connected With
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 2182/2025
                                         In

                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2622/2025

Sampat Lal S/o Lalu Ram Balai, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jyoti
Nagar, Bhilwara (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. S.K. Bhati
                                  Mr. Mahendra Singh Soni
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA



                       (Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)
                      (Downloaded on 09/01/2026 at 09:27:02 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:685]                       (2 of 8)                      [SOSA-2175/2025]


                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.5/2014 whereby

they were convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum

imprisonment of seven years SI along with a fine of

Rs.5,000/- under Section 329 of the IPC and lesser

punishment for the other offences under Sections 323 and

341 o the IPC

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.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:685] (3 of 8) [SOSA-2175/2025]

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.

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

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:685] (4 of 8) [SOSA-2175/2025]

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

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,

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:685] (5 of 8) [SOSA-2175/2025]

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 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

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the instant case, the appellants have been convicted and

sentenced to the maximum term of five years under Section

329 of the IPC. For the purpose of evaluating the nature and

extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim, this

Court has meticulously examined Exhibit P-1, the First

Information Report, along with the depositions of PW-1

Ashok Kumar, PW-5 Naveen, PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Goyal, and

PW-11 Mukesh Chand Jain.

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:685] (6 of 8) [SOSA-2175/2025]

14. A matter of considerable significance emerges from the

evidence of PW-1, an ophthalmologist, who, while furnishing

his opinion vide Exhibits P-11 and P-22, candidly

acknowledged that he had not personally examined the

patient. Such an admission strikes at the very foundation of

the medical evidence and raises a grave and substantive

issue, which undeniably warrants careful and thorough

judicial scrutiny. Further, the testimony of PW-9 Dr. Rajesh

Goyal, a Medical Officer, reveals that the external condition

of the patient's left eye, including the cornea, was observed

to be normal. Although PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Goyal noticed

dryness of the corneal nerves, he explicitly conceded that

such a condition could arise from multiple causes, and

importantly, he did not ascribe it solely or conclusively to the

alleged incident.

15. In the backdrop of these material inconsistencies, coupled

with the absence of a clear and medically substantiated

causal link between the alleged act and the ocular condition,

the medical evidence assumes a contested and debatable

character. In such circumstances, a fresh, detailed, and

circumspect re-appreciation of the evidence by this Court is

imperative before any affirmation of the findings recorded by

the learned trial court can be entertained.

16. The issues raised are of vital significance and carry

substantial force; if adjudicated in favor of the appellants,

there exists a plausible prospect that the ultimate conclusion

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:35:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:685] (7 of 8) [SOSA-2175/2025]

could result in acquittal. The grounds urged are appreciable,

necessitating exhaustive and methodical examination, and

there is a reasonable likelihood that such a judicial exercise

may ultimately redound to the benefit of the appellants.

17. 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:-

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.