Islam S/O Abdullah Shah Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

(1) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1688/2025

¶4

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.64/2025

¶5

Mohammad Ishaq S/o Indraj Ali @ Imdad Ali, Resident Of Bada Mohalla, Near Kasaiyon Ki Masjid, Malpura, District Tonk (Rajasthan) (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶6

----Accused/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

(2) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2370/2024 In

¶12

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.469/2024

¶13

Mohammad Habib S/o Abdul Rehman, Resident Of Upli Guwadi Bada Mohalla Malpura, District Tonk (Rajasthan) (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail. Jaipur)

¶14

----Accused/Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

(3) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2452/2024

¶19

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.487/2024

¶20

Mohammed Jafar S/o Umrao Ali, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bada Mohalla, Near Fazil Ka Nada, Malpura, Dist Tonk(Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶21

Bilal Ahammed @ Billu S/o Abdulla, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Bada Mohalla, Near Fazil Ka Nada, Malpura, Distt. Tonk (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶22

----Accused/Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶25

----Respondent

¶26

(4) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 553/2025

¶27

In

¶28

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.14/2025

¶29

(2 of 6) [SOSA-1688/2025]

¶30

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

¶31

Abdul Razaq Son Of Shri Abdulla, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bada Mohalla Upli Guvadi Malpura District Tonk (Rajasthan) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶32

Sajid Ali Son Of Shri Abid Ali, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Bada Mohalla, Near Kasai’s Mosque Malpura District Tonk (Rajasthan) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶33

----Accused/Appellants

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶36

----Respondent

¶37

(5) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 561/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.15/2025

¶38

Islam S/o Abdullah Shah, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Toda Road Rasriya School Ke Pass Malpura, P.S. Malpura District Tonk (Raj) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶39

Irshad S/o Abdul Rehman @ Kalu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Chota Mohalla, Choti Masjid Ke Pass Malpura District Tonk (Raj) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶40

----Accused/Appellants

¶41

Versus

¶42

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶43

----Respondent

¶44

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Syed Adeel Naqvi Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abdul Basit Naqvi and Mr. Ishaan Raj Khan Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amar Kumar and Ms. Savita Nathawat Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Saurabh Yadav
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP Mr. Naman Agarwal and Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav with Mr. Narsi Prasad Sharma

(3 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

[SOSA-1688/2025]

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

¶49

Order

¶50

Date of Conclusion of Arguments : : 06/01/2026 Order Reserved On : : 06/01/2026

¶51

Whether the full order or only the operative part is pronounced Full Order Order Pronounced On : : 08/01/2026

¶52

These applications have been filed by the accused-applicants (for short, ‘the applicants’) for suspension of sentence awarded to them by the Court of learned Special Judge, Communal Riots Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 02.12.2024 whereby, they have been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶53

Under Section 302/149 IPC : Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof, four months simple imprisonment.

¶54

Under Section 148 IPC : Two years simple imprisonment.

¶55

Under Section 147 IPC : One year simple imprisonment.

¶56

Sentences to run concurrently.

¶57

Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Mr. S.S. Hasan and Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsels and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants submit that they have falsely been implicated in this case wherein, the FIR does not contain their name. They submit that out of two eye-witnesses, one of the eye-witness namely; Smt. Tulsa Devi (PW-9)-sister in-law of the deceased- Shri Hariram, has turned hostile and deposition of only remaining eye-

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

[SOSA-1688/2025]

(4 of 6)

witness namely; Smt. Dhanni Devi (PW-3)-wife of the deceased is full of contradictions and improvements on material aspect of the case and is not creditworthy. They further submit that the evidence on record reflects that although, the FIR was lodged after deliberation and despite it being the prosecution case that Smt. Dhanni Devi-the informant knew all the accused-applicants by name before its lodgement, no reason is furnished as to why the same lacks their name which raises a serious doubt about veracity of the prosecution case. They contend that they were not subjected to test identification parade. Learned counsels further submit that they were on bail during trial, there is no allegation of misusing the liberty for a period of about 24 years when they were on bail before passing of the judgment impugned, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and therefore, pray that the sentence awarded to them be suspended.

¶62

Per contra, Shri Rajesh Choudhary-learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General would submit that the material on record reflects that the deceased-Hariram was attacked by the applicants armed with deadly weapons and died on account of the injuries inflicted by them. He further submits that there has been recovery of weapons of offence at their instance. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the applications.

¶63

Heard. Considered.

¶64

A perusal of the written report dated 10.07.2000 (Ex. P4) lodged by Smt. Dhanni Devi (PW-3) reflects allegation against son of Abdul Sai of pushing down her husband, against son of Kalu Sai of inflicting an injury by ‘farsi’ (a sharp edged weapon) on left thigh and against brother of Naid Sayyed of inflicting a farsi blow

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

[SOSA-1688/2025]

(5 of 6)

on the head of her husband besides omnibus allegations against a large gathering comprising of 100-125 person. Out of the two eye witnesses, one; Smt. Tulsa Devi (PW-9) has turned hostile and testimony of the remaining eye witness namely Smt. Dhanni Devi (PW-3), prima facie, reflects material contradictions and improvements on material aspects of the case. In her examination-in-chief, she has alleged that the applicant Ishaq S/o Indraj whistled giving indication to a gathering of about 100-200 people-an allegation not part of the FIR lodged by her. Changing her stand from the written report, it is alleged that the applicant Irshad S/o Kalu Sai separated her forcibly from the person of her husband. It further reveals that although in the written report, the allegation of inflicting a ‘farsi’ blow on the head of the deceased was against brother of Naid Sayyed; but, he has been substituted by the applicant Razaq S/o Abdulla Sayyed. The prosecution evidence does not reflect Razaq to be the same person against whom allegation was levelled in the written report. The deposition of PW-3 also reveals allegation of inflicting injuries on the body of her deceased husband with sharp edged weapon against Sajid S/o Abid, Billu S/o Abdulla, Jafar S/o Umrao and Habib S/o Rehman Patwari whom, although, she claims to have known prior to the date of incident; but, conspicuously, in her written report dated 10.07.2000, neither their names are mentioned nor, there is any allegation of use of sharp edged weapons by any accused other than those named therein. Further, it is stated in the written report that she would recognise the accused persons if confronted; but, indisputably, no test identification parade was conducted. Moreover, although, it is claimed in the written report

[2026:RJ-JP:374-DB]

[SOSA-1688/2025]

(6 of 6)

that some independent persons also witnessed the incident; but, none was examined for no reason.

¶73

All the applicants remained on bail for a period of almost 24 years during trial and there is no allegation of misuse of the liberty for this long period. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard on an early date. In the conspectus of the aforesaid background, we deem it just and proper to allow the applications for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants and suspend their sentence during pendency of the appeals.

¶74

Resultantly, the suspension of sentence applications are allowed. The substantive sentence awarded to the applicants vide judgment dated 02.12.2024 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeals provided each of them furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶75

The applicants shall mark their attendance before the Registrar (Judl.) on 09.02.2026.

¶76

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

¶77

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶78

RS/15-19

Islam S/O Abdullah Shah v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islam S/O Abdullah Shah v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Seth @ Neha Seth D/O Shri Ashok Seth Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajendra S/O Dalu Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Rashmi Sarswal, D/O Shri Om Prakash Vs Rajasthan Para Medical Council

Abdul Razaq Son of Shri Abdulla Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Ishaq S/O Indraj Ali @ Imdad Ali, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramprasad S/O Shri Bholaram Balai Vs State of Rajasthan