Applicant convicted of murder and Arms Act offence sought suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS. Court declined to re-appreciate evidence at this stage and refused suspension, citing gravity and nature of accusation; application dismissed.
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:6584-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.
921/2024
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.175/2024
Iqbal Khan S/o Shri Mushtak Khan, R/o Near Hathai Ghughara, P.s. Civil Line, Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer).
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG with Mr. Aman Agrawal Ms. Neha Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
12/02/2026
This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”). The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Ajmer vide judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed in in Session Case No.127/2020 (CIS No.127/2020) as under:-
[2026:RJ-JP:6584-DB]
[SOSA-921/2024]
(2 of 3)
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is based on hearsay evidence and the only eyewitness has turned hostile. He further submits that the fingerprints of the accused on knife- the weapon of the offence were not obtained. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is in custody for a period of about six years and prays for suspension of sentence.
Per contra, learned GA cum AAG has opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered.
While recording the conviction of the applicant, the learned trial Court, relying upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, namely, S/Shri Sukhdev (PW-1), Mahaveer (PW-3), Ramdev (PW-9), and Ghisu Singh (PW-17), has held that the prosecution has been able to establish that the applicant inflicted knife blow on the body of the victim resulting into his death. The allegation is found to be medically corroborated. It is also held by the learned trial Court that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit P-46), the blood grouping on the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of incidence and the knife recovered at instance of the applicant, has matched. It is trite law that at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence application, we are not expected to re-appreciate the evidence.
Looking to the gravity and nature of accusation against the applicant, we are not inclined to allow the suspension of sentence application.
[2026:RJ-JP:6584-DB] (3 of 3)
[SOSA-921/2024]
Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is
dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
CHANDAN /2
1 issue framed by the court
Should the applicant's sentence be suspended pending appeal after conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Iqbal Khan
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
