Partly allowed

Kailash S/O Harbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2026SOSA/1081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants convicted for murder under Sections 302/149 IPC sought suspension of sentence during pendency of appeals. The Court dismissed Budhram's application citing medical corroboration of his axe blow on the deceased's head but allowed suspension for the other five applicants who were on bail during trial and whose role involved only simple injuries to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences of Bahadur, Asharam, Kailash, Sitaram and Abhayram suspended during pendency of appeals; released on bail subject to conditions.

Kailash S/O Harbhan Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

¶4

2625/2025

¶5

¶6

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2025

¶7

Abhayram S/o Kailash

¶8

Budhram S/o Harbhan

¶9

Both are resident Of Soorgarh, Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sevar, Bharatpur)

¶10

----Accused/Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

Connected With

¶15

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1000/2025

¶16

¶17

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025

¶18

Sitaram Son Of Sukhji, R/o Surgarh Ps Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Sub Jail Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur)

¶19

----Accused/Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶22

----Respondent

¶23

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1081/2025

¶24

¶25

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 220/2025

¶26

Kailash S/o Harbhan

¶27

Asharam S/o Budhram

¶28

Bahadur S/o Budhram

¶29

All are residents Of Soorgar Police Station Banwas Dist

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

[SOSA-2625/2025]

Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan (Accused Confined In Central Jail Sevar Dist. Bharatpur)

¶34

----Accused/Appellants

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. A K Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rinesh Gupta Mr. Sauravh Pratap Singh Mr. Gorang Agarwal Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka Mr. Sarwat Alam Mr. Pulkit Raj Mr. D K Dixit
For Complainant	:	Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Ms. Neha Goyal

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶40

Order

¶41

19/01/2026

¶42

The accused-applicants (for short, ‘the applicants’) have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Gangapur City, District-Sawai Madhopur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 01.05.2025 as under:-

¶43

1. Section 302/149 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of ₹20,000/- each in default whereof, six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶44

2. Section 307/149 IPC : Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹3,000/- each in default whereof, three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

(3 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

[SOSA-2625/2025]

3. Section 148 IPC : One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of ₹500/- in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

¶49

4. Section 341/149 IPC: Fifteen day’s simple imprisonment and fine of ₹200/- each in default whereof, three months’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶50

5. Section 323/149 IPC: Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of ₹300/- each in default whereof, fifteen days’ simple imprisonment.

¶51

All the sentences to run concurrently.

¶52

Learned Senior counsel for the applicants, inviting attention towards evidence on record, would submit that although, the informant and injured witness Jeetram has claimed himself to be an eye-witness; but, it is not so reflected. He further submits that although, in the FIR, the allegation against the applicant-Budhram is of inflicting an axe blow on the head of deceased Ramrakh; but, it is not medically corroborated. Learned Senior counsel contended that Shri Himmat Singh-ASI who conducted the investigation to a considerable extent, was not examined which has prejudiced their defence. He submitted that it was not proved by the prosecution that what treatment was given to the deceased in the SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur inasmuch as Exs. P41 and P42, medical record of the deceased of the hospital was not proved by doctor who prepared the same. Learned Senior counsel canvassed that the applicant-Budhram was roped in as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Lastly, he submitted that they were on bail during trial and prays for suspension of their sentence.

¶53

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer.

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

[SOSA-2625/2025]

(4 of 6)

Heard. Considered.

In the FIR lodged by son of the deceased and himself an injured witness-Shri Jeetram (PW3), there is a specific allegation against the applicant Budhram of inflicting an axe blow on the head of the deceased. His brother and another injured eye-witness Shri Devi Singh has categorically stated as PW-6 that Budhram has inflicted the axe blow on the head of deceased Ramrakh from reverse side; i.e., the blunt side which is medically corroborated from the postmortem report of body of the deceased Ex. P16. As per Dr. Dinesh Chand (PW-14), a member of the Medical Board who conducted the autopsy, the deceased died on account of coma due to head injury which was dealt with such intensity that it had broken the skull bone into pieces which were taken out during surgery. In view thereof, we are not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence to the applicant Budhram.

¶59

So far as rest of the applicants are concerned, although, the allegation against them, as per the injured witnesses, is of severely beating the deceased; but, the deceased has received only one simple injury other than the head injury and the other two injured witnesses have received only simple injuries. They were also on bail during trial. In view thereof, we are inclined to accept their suspension of sentence applications.

¶60

Accordingly, while dismissing the suspension of sentence application filed by the accused-applicant Budhram , we allow the suspension of sentence applications of rest of the accused applicants. Substantive sentences awarded to the accusedapplicants Bahadur S/o Budhram, Asharam S/o Budhram, Kailash S/o Harbhan, Sitaram Son Of Sukhji and Abhayram

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

[SOSA-2625/2025]

(5 of 6)

S/o Kailash by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeals and they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on or before 24.02.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeals and subject to the following conditions:-

¶65

That they will appear before the learned trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeals are decided.

¶66

That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address(s) to the learned trial Court as well as to their learned counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform this Court.

¶67

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the learned trial Court.

¶68

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file(s). Such file(s) be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file(s) shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the learned trial Court. In case, the said accused-applicants do not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order.

¶69

Learned Senior counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted six weeks’ time to produce the paper book.

[2026:RJ-JP:2128-DB]

[SOSA-2625/2025]

(6 of 6)

List the appeals for hearing thereafter.

¶74

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶75

Tahir./10-12

Kailash S/O Harbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash S/O Harbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nisha Kanwar Wife of Shri Ranveer Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumhar S/O Sh. Jamman Lal Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Sharma S/O Sh. Goverdhan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Son of Sukhji Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Danmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Sharma @ Patel S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan