Mahesh Son of Gangaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

These suspension of sentence applications under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity, “the applicants”) alongwith the appeals. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3 Bharatpur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.10/2018 (CIS No.95/2017) as under:-

¶60

Under Section 148 IPC : Two years’ simple imprisonment and fine of ₹2,000/- in default thereof, fifteen days’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶61

Under Section 341 IPC : Fifteen days’ simple imprisonment and fine of ₹500/- in default thereof, seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶62

Under Section 323/149 IPC : Three months’ simple imprisonment and fine of ₹500/- in default thereof, seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶63

Under Section 302 & 302/149 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of ₹50,000/- in default thereof, one year’s additional simple imprisonment.

¶64

All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

¶65

Learned Senior Counsel-Shri Suresh Pareek assisted by Mr. Shanker Lal Sharma appearing for the applicants-Shibba @ Shiv Kumar, Kapil Panchori and Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu and learned counsels for the other applicants canvass that they have falsely been implicated in this case.

¶66

Inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of the prosecution witnesses-S/Shri Shivram (PW-1), Jawahar Singh

[2026:RJ-JP:859-DB]

[SOSA-1464/2025]

(4 of 7)

(PW-2) and Karan Singh (PW-3) and the site plan (Exhibit P-4), they would submit that none could have seen the incident from the place they were shown to be present at the time of incident and their testimony is not creditworthy. They further submit that as per the postmortem report (Exhibit P-50), the deceased-Shri Vikram has received three injuries; all with sharp edged weapon but, except the co-accused Dinesh, none has used any sharp edged weapon. They further submit that although, it is alleged that the applicant-Shibba @ Shiv Kumar inflicted a Farsa (a sharp edged weapon) blow on the hand of the deceased but, a stick has been recovered at his instance. They further submit that although, it is the prosecution case that all the accused-persons comprising of thirteen in number inflicted blows with sharp edged/blunt weapon on the person of deceased but, as is reflected from the postmortem report, he has received only three injuries making it a case of false and over-implication. They also submit that while, the co-accused Dinesh, against whom allegation is of inflicting the fatal blow, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, the applicants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC with the add of Section 149 IPC. Lastly, they submit that the applicants were on bail during the trial with absence of allegation of misusing their liberty, hearing of the appeals is likely to take time and pray for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to them.

¶71

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposing the prayer, submitted that the applicants, as members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, assaulted the deceased-Shri

[2026:RJ-JP:859-DB]

[SOSA-1464/2025]

(5 of 7)

Vikram resulting into his death and therefore, they do not deserve indulgence of suspension of substantive sentence.

¶76

Heard. Considered.

¶77

This Court finds substantial force in the submissions raised by the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsels for the applicants. Indisputably, the incident has taken place inside the house of some of the accused-applicants. However, a perusal of the site plan (Exhibit P-4) reflects that all the three eye witnesses were not present at the place of incident, as claimed by them but, at such places from where they could not have seen the incident occurring inside the house. Further, Shri Karan Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased has categorically deposed that S/Shri Shivram and Jawahar Singh came upon his calling. Therefore, prima-facie, deposition of all the three eye witnesses is rendered doubtful.

¶78

It is also revealed from the evidence that although, there is allegation of inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased by all the accused-applicants either with sharp edged or blunt weapon, but, the postmortem report reflects only three injuries on his person that too with sharp edged weapon. The fatal injury has been assigned to the co-accused Dinesh who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC simplicitor whereas, the applicants have been convicted with the add of Section 149 IPC and there is absence of evidence on record to demonstrate that any of the accused-applicants has used any sharp edged weapon. The applicants were on bail during the trial and there is no allegation of misuse of their liberty. There is no possibility of the appeals being heard in near future. In the conspectus of aforesaid

[2026:RJ-JP:859-DB]

[SOSA-1464/2025]

(6 of 7)

background, we deem it just and proper to allow the suspension of sentence applications.

¶83

Accordingly, the suspension of sentence applications are allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicants by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 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 10.02.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeals and subject to the following conditions:-

¶84

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

¶85

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.

¶86

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

¶87

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

[2026:RJ-JP:859-DB]

[SOSA-1464/2025]

(7 of 7)

matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order.

¶92

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

¶93

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J