The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

Heera Lal Son Of Shri Govindaram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Jhigar Chhoti Ps Dadiya District Sikar (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail Bikaner)

4. Sharwan Son Of Shri Pooranmal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jhigar Chhoti Ps Dadiya District Sikar (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail Bikaner) The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p Versus ----Petitioners ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka with Mr. Jitender Singh Shekhawat Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 27/05/2025 Order

1. Instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-accused Asharam, Shivbhagwan, Heera Lal and Sharwan in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2025 in sessions case No. [2025:RJ-JP:22484] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1002/2025] (CIS No.) 168/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar whereby these appellants-accused were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The maximum sentence awarded is 7 years.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that while referring the facts of the case submits that for incident of 03.07.2017, a report was registered on 04.07.2017 against 12 persons but after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against four persons. He further submits that prior to registration of report by present complainant FIR No. 170/17 was registered by appellant’s side. He further referred the site plan Ex. P.3 and submits that from cross- examination of Investigating Officer, PW-20 it is proved that the place of incident was wrongly mentioned. He also submits that the place of incident is boundary line of field of appellant-accused wherein the complainant party have assaulted with aggression and they were aggressors. He also submits that the appellants and complainant injured were brothers and belongs to same family but it was complainant who took the law in hands. He further referred the investigation and submits that even PW-6 was not an eye- witness but injury report is filed to claim her as as an eye-witness. He further submits that the medical jurist of Sikar and SMS Hospital, Jaipur, who prepared injury report of injured were not examined. He further submits that the Trial Court has ignored the discrepancies and material contradictions which were sufficient to dent the case of prosecution. He also referred the cross- examination of eye-witnesses and injured and submits that the accused were not responsible for assault on complainant and this [2025:RJ-JP:22484] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1002/2025] is a case of free fight. At last, he submits that accused are on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant while referring the judgment dated 07.05.2025 in sessions case No. (CIS) 15/2020 arising out of FIR No. 170/17, P.S. Dadiya, District Sikar submits that in cross-case all persons charged were acquitted. He also submits that one of the injured sitting before the Court is suffering from paraplazia due injuries in present incident. He also submits that the complainant-injured have supported the case of prosecution and none of them deposed a different version.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate along with report received from P.S. Dadiya, District Sikar.

6. On basis of report Ex. P-1 lodged by PW-1 Jagdish Prasad about incident of assault with deadly weapons FIR No. 171/17 under Sections 143, 447, 323, 354, 382 IPC was registered on

04.07.2017 at P.S. Dadiya, District Sikar. After investigtion, police has filed a charge-sheet against all four appellants under Sections 341, 327, 325 and 307/34 IPC. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents and 7 articles. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence and exhibited 11 documents. The accused were convicted and now they are in custody. [2025:RJ-JP:22484] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1002/2025]

7. the judment dated 07.05.2025 in a matter arising out of FIR No.170/17 P.S. Dadiya, District Sikar indicate that Manohar Lal, Jagdish, Richpal and Mukesh Kumar were acquitted from charge under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. These appellants were on bail during trial and there is no criminal antecedents against any of them.

8. We have considered the evidence on record which indicate that there was a land dispute and the parties belongs to the same family. Initially, a report was registered against several persons but ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against four persons. The Trial Court has already considered the fact about injury upon Santra (PW-6) and observed that same is not proved. The grounds raised by learned counsel requires consideration on merits and at this stage it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case. These appellants are agriculturalists and the matter arisen out of dispute relating to land, therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is appropriate to allow application for suspension of sentence of present appellants-accused.

9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of applicant accused Asharam son of Shri Govindaram, Shivbhagwan son of Shri Pooranmal, Heera Lal son of Shri Govindaram, and Sharwan son of Shri Pooranmal 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 their appearance in this Court on [2025:RJ-JP:22484] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1002/2025]

10.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That the appellants-accused shall not contact or connect directly or indirectly with victim or any of her family member.

2. 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.

3. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

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

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

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

11. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. MONU /23 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J