Rajasthan High Court Suspends Life Sentence of 68-Year-Old Woman in Murder Case

In a decisive intervention highlighting the absence of substantive connecting evidence in serious criminal charges, the Rajasthan High Court suspended the life sentence of a 68-year-old woman convicted in a murder case. The decision underscores judicial scrutiny over evidentiary links when considering post-conviction relief for elderly appellants.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sandeep Shah considered the suspension of sentence application filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.).

Court's Observations and Evaluation

The High Court evaluated the evidence on record and the submissions made by both sides. Without entering into an in-depth analysis of the merits, the Court concluded that the sentence deserved to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the considered opinion of this Court, without commenting on the merit and demerit of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicant-appellant."

The Court has following directions:

"It is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, District Barmer, vide judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed in Session Case No.80/2024 against the applicant – Tagi W/o Mohabta Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance in this Court on 28.09.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

(i)                 That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

(ii)              That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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

Background

The applicant was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, District Barmer, in Session Case No.80/2024 vide judgment dated 09.02.2026. She was sentenced under Section 147 of the IPC to two years' RI; Section 148 of the IPC to three years' RI; Section 450 read with Section 149 of the IPC to ten years' RI; Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC to one year's RI; and under Sections 302/149 and 120-B of the IPC to Imprisonment for Life, along with monetary fines.

Counsel for the applicant contended that she was falsely implicated and that prosecution witnesses themselves failed to place her at the scene of the incident. It was further asserted that apart from the recovery of a mobile phone, there was no connecting material establishing her involvement. Highlighting her advanced age of 68 years and the fact that she was on bail during the trial, counsel sought suspension of the sentence. The Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of relief.

Taking these factors into account, the High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, directing her release subject to conditional bail terms.

Case Details:
Case No.: D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 629/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:42611-DB
Case Title: Tagi v. State Of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chatur Bhuj
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 15847