Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC on circumstantial evidence sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, citing acquittal of a co-accused and hostile last-seen witness. Court found co-accused's case distinguishable, held merits are not minutely examined at this stage, and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:RJ-JP:4940-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1415/2024
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.249/2024
Manoj Son Of Late Surajkaran, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Gram Daulatpura First P.s. Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer (Accused Appellant Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sunil Tyagi with Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta with |
| Mr. Vinod Sharma | |
| Ms. Neha Goyal |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
03/02/2026
This suspension of sentence application under Section 430(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”) alongwith the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer vide judgment dated 26.06.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.08/2022 (CIS No.07/2021) as under:-
[2026:RJ-JP:4940-DB]
[SOSA-1415/2024]
(2 of 3)
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although, his conviction has been recorded based on circumstantial evidence, but, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion of his guilt. He further submits that on the same set of evidence, co-accused Amarchand @ Gopal has been acquitted. Learned counsel contends that out of three witnesses of the “last seen”, one has turned hostile and the testimony of remaining two witnesses suffer from the vice of contradiction and improvement on material aspects. He, therefore, prays that the substantive sentence awarded to him be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the application.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the judgment impugned dated 26.06.2024 reflects that relying upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses including the testimony of (Ankush) PW-11, it was held that the deceased was seen last in the company of the applicant. There has been recovery of incriminating material based on disclosure statement made by the applicant. So far as co-accused is concerned, his case has been found to be distinguishable from the case of the present applicant. It is trite law that at the stage of consideration of the suspension of sentence application, merit of the case is not required to be examined meticulously and minutely.
Looking to the gravity of offence and nature of accusation against the applicant, we are not inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence to him.
[2026:RJ-JP:4940-DB] (3 of 3)
[SOSA-1415/2024]
Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is
dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
CHANDAN /116-117
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the substantive sentence of the applicant should be suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
