Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1878/2025
1. Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
2. Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Adv. Asst. by
Mr. Arvind Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary Sr. Adv
Asst by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 16/12/2025
1. Aforesaid applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.21/2009 (CIS No.149/2009) as per the details below:
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of
fine
1. Section Life Rs.20,000/- 3 Months S.I.
302/149 Imprisonment
IPC
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
2. Section 10 Years S.I. Rs.20,000/- 3 Months S.I.
307/149
IPC
3. Section 10 Years S.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 Month S.I.
458/149
IPC
4. Section 7 Years S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month S.I.
325/149
IPC
5. Section 3 Years S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month S.I.
324/149
IPC
6. Section 6 Months S.I. Rs.1,000/- 10 Days S.I.
323/149
IPC
7. Section 1 Year S.I. Rs.500/- 10 Days S.I.
147/149
IPC
8. Section 3 Year S.I. Rs.500/- 10 Days S.I.
148/149
IPC
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant seeks suspension of sentence under Section 430 of B.N.S.S. (389 Cr.P.C.) and release them on bail.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicants as well learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia assisted by Mr. Arvind Singh appearing for the applicants would urge that both the applicants are senior citizens (being 68 and 65 years, respectively) and were on bail during the trial which lasted as long as 17 years and they never misused the concession granted to them.
4.1 Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel would point out that mere omnibus allegations of causing injuries are attributed to the applicants herein. No specific role of any fatal injury or otherwise (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025] has been assigned to them. The impugned judgment dated 01.08.2025 is not sustainable as it disregards the evidence on record and is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution case suffers from serious factual, evidentiary, and procedural infirmities, rendering the conviction unsustainable. 4.2. He would argue that the alleged incident occurred at about 1:00 a.m. on a pitch-dark night. All material witnesses (PW-1 Radha, PW-2 Jagdish, and PW-4 Seema) are close relatives of the deceased and admittedly were asleep at the time of the incident. In such circumstances, their claim of having clearly identified the accused is inherently doubtful, particularly when no evidence of lighting at the spot was investigated or recorded in the site plan or halat mauka. Their testimonies are inconsistent regarding visibility, weather conditions, and moonlight, and materially contradict each other.
4.3. There are no independent eyewitnesses. Crucial alleged independent witnesses i.e. neighbour Nopa Ram, who purportedly took the injured to the hospital, and the complainant's grandfather Sugana Ram were available, but deliberately withheld by the prosecution, raising a serious adverse inference. PW-9 Madanlal is only a hearsay witness and his statement was recorded after an unexplained delay.
4.4. The investigation is fundamentally defective. No jeep allegedly used by the accused was recovered; no tyre marks or footprints were properly examined; cots and bedding allegedly stained with blood were not seized; and blood samples were inconsistently collected. Key documents such as the naksha mauka and halat mauka are unreliable, with witnesses stating (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025] their signatures were taken on blank papers and that the documents were neither read nor explained to them. Important witnesses to these documents were not examined, and some witnesses turned hostile.
4.5. The initial parcha bayan (Ex. P-3) is unreliable. It omits the names of some accused despite them being close relatives, contains only vague and omnibus allegations, specifies no individual role, bears no recorded time, lacks medical certification of fitness, and is not reflected in the rojnamcha. Subsequent court testimonies show substantial improvements and exaggerations over statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 4.6. He would further argue that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. In one case, death occurred 18 days after the incident without a clear cause of death being stated. Doctors categorically admitted that injuries found were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and no fatal external injuries on vital parts were established. Thus, medical evidence materially contradicts the ocular version. 4.7. The motive is not proved. No land dispute or pending litigation involving the accused is established. The prosecution case appears to be an afterthought, based entirely on interested and unreliable witnesses, with no cogent chain of circumstances. 4.8. Despite these serious lapses, the trial court ignored material contradictions, investigative failures, unreliable medical evidence, and binding precedents cited by the defence, and wrongly convicted the appellant.
4.9. Accordingly, he urges that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025] the benefit of doubt, and the impugned judgment and sentence dated 01.08.2025 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4.10. He would thus submit that there are glaring contradictions in the evidence and notwithstanding the same merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises learned Sessions Judge has convicted the applicants. He would submit that despite having a good case on merits, the applicants are languishing in jail. The appeal filed by them, has though been admitted, but given the heavy pendency in this Court, there does not appear to be any chance of it being heard in near future.
4.11. In the parting learned Senior counsel would point out that one of the co-convicts of the applicants namely Sriram who was also similarly situated as the applicants herein, but before his bail plea could be considered he died under incarceration at the age of 70 years.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application stating that learned Sessions Judge has convicted the applicants in heinous offence and persual of the judgment would reveal that the same is based on prior appreciation of evidence and warrants no interference.
6. Having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, we are of the view that the application of the convicts deserve to be allowed. Prima facie the arguments addressed by learned Senior Counsel (as noted above) appear to have some substance, but the same can only be thrashed out at the stage of final hearing of appeal after perusal of the record and the evidence adduced. No definitive opinion can be expressed at this (Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025] stage qua the same. However, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of concession of bail.
7. Given that there is no likelihood of final hearing of the appeal in the near future, keeping the applicants under incarceration would therefore, may result in travesty of justice in case they were to succeed in their appeals. Currently appeals of year 2000- 2001 are being listed for final hearing.
8. As already observed, the appellant-applicants were on bail during the trial. Consequently, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant-applicants, namely, (1) Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram (2) Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram, during the pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S./389 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner vide judgment dated 01.08.2025 in Sessions Case No.21/2009 (CIS No.149/2009) against the appellant-applicants, namely, (1) Gopal Ram S/o Sugana Ram (2) Heera Ram S/o Sugana Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court as and when ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54200-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1878/2025]
2. That if the applicants change 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court.
10. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case, the applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J (ARUN MONGA),J
61-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 01:04:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/12/2025 at 08:57:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)