State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor v. For

: Mr. Rajesh Maharishi with Mr. Prashant Dubey Mr. Devanshu Saini & Mr. Balram Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain Mr. Vijay Singh yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 22/05/2025 Order

1. This application for suspension of sentence is preferred by accused Nandlal son of Shri Ladunath, Jagdish Yogi son of Shri Nandlal, Manoj Son of Shri Nandlal and Chandrakala wife of Manoj in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2025 in sessions case No. [2025:RJ-JP:21775] (2 of 6) [SOSA-942/2025] 25/2018 passed by learned Aditional Session Judge Camp, Deoli, District Tonk, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326/149 and maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant-accused is 5 years.

2. Learned counsel for appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submits that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by complainant. He further submits that as per facts and evidence of the case, the complainant party have assaulted the accused party for taking possession of land cultivated by appellant-accused and two cross cases were registered from this incident, wherein one case against the appellants and the trial is concluded but in another case pending, which was registered by present appellants. He further referred Parcha Bayan Ex. P-43 and submits that as per Parcha Bayan and after statement before the Trial Court particularly of injured Gayatri (PW-4), Gopal (PW-2) Dariao (PW-3), there is discrepancy about the incident, attribution and assignment of injuries. He further submits that the discrepancies in the statement of injured clearly reflect that it is a case of free fight and no specific role and involvement of present appellants was alleged by the injured. He further referred the site plan and evidence and submits that place of incident is farmland which is in possession of accused and for this purpose he referred the statement of I.O. Udaylal (PW-20) and submits that the accused party in possession of land for which a stay was granted by the RAA and revenue suit is pending before the Revenue Court. Learned counsel for appellant has further referred statement of PW-13 to PW-17 and submits that these [2025:RJ-JP:21775] (3 of 6) [SOSA-942/2025] witnesses have not corroborated the story of prosecution. He also submits that from all evidence available on record, it is established that the accused are in possession on disputed land and the complainant party are trying to dispossess them which is sufficient to show that complainant party was aggressor.

3. Learned counsel for appellant has also referred the statement of PW-1 and submitted that he is neither a treating doctor nor a person who conducted any surgery. He also submits that his opinion about the grievous injury is not in accordance with Section 320 of IPC wherein grievous injury is defined. He also submits that prosecution has not examined either a technician or radiologist to prove that x-ray was conducted in his presence. He further referred the injuries upon body of Gayatri and submits that there is a discrepancy about injury upon Gayatri but the prosecution has failed to establish that injury upon Gayatri is grievous in nature. He also referred the statement of witnesses and submits that as per injured, three persons were having sharp edged weapon and according to report Ex. P.43 only Jagdish was having a sharp edged weapon. He further submits that there was no recovery from two other accused which clearly shows that the facts were manipulated by the complainant to falsely implicate present appellants. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Mohd. Jabbar Ali & Ors. Vs. state of Assam 2023 (2) 201 S.C. and Ram Kharia Vs. State of Jharkhand MANU/JH/0340/2020 and submits that the Trial Court has ignored the material contradictions in the evidence and these material contradictions is sufficient to discard the case of prosecution. At last, he submits that these appellants were on bail [2025:RJ-JP:21775] (4 of 6) [SOSA-942/2025] during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant while relying upon injury and X-ray report of Gayatri submitted that she has suffered grievous injury by sharp edged weapon and her finger tip was amputated which was proved by PW-1.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public prosecutor. Perused the record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellants.

5. On basis of Parcha Byan of PW-2 about assault by appellants-accused and others FIR No. 206/2015 under Sections 143, 323, 308, 447 and 504 IPC was registered at Police Station Deoli, District Tonk. After investigation, police has filed a charge- sheet agaisnt Nandlal, Jagdish Yogi, Manoj, Parmeshwar @ Parmesh and Chanderkala. During pendency of sessions case, Parmeshwar @ Parmesh has expired and the proceedings were dropped against him. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined two witnesses and exhibited 85 documents and 12 articles. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited 5 documents Exs. D.1 to D.5. These four accused were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326/149 but acquitted from charge under Section 447 and 308 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is 5 years. Accused Nand Kishore, Jagdish and Manoj were released on anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk. [2025:RJ-JP:21775] (5 of 6) [SOSA-942/2025]

6. We have considered the evidence of injured and also the documents relating to cross FIR No. 207/15 P.S. Deoli District Tonk registered by Nand lal. There is a land dispute between the parties and same is evident from the record.

7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case but having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to allow application for suspension of sentence of these appellants-accused as disposal of appeal will take its own time.

8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellants-applicants accused Nandlal son of Shri Ladunath, Jagdish Yogi son of Shri Nandlal, Manoj Son of Shri Nandlal and Chandrakala wife of Manoj is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 04.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail.

2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. [2025:RJ-JP:21775] (6 of 6) [SOSA-942/2025]

3. That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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

9. In case, the applicants has violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and canceled.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. MONU /22 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J