RAJA @ RAJARAM S/O TEJRAM BRAHMANAND SANDU vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — SOSA/1859/2025
Case under Other Acts Section NO. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 25th March 2026.
CNR: RJHC020745522025
Filing Number
SOSA/32038/2025
Filing Date
26-Aug-2025
Registration No
SOSA/1859/2025
Registration Date
15-Sep-2025
Judge
Mahendar Kumar Goyal , Bhuwan Goyal
Coram
Mahendar Kumar Goyal , Bhuwan Goyal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJA @ RAJARAM S/O TEJRAM BRAHMANAND SANDU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,bhuwan GoyalView PDF
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed suspension of sentence applications filed by two convicts, Raja @ Rajaram and Banwari Lal, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34. The court found the prosecution evidence—including credible eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons, forensic blood evidence, and postmortem findings of multiple fatal injuries—sufficient to uphold conviction, rejecting arguments about witness credibility and evidentiary gaps as mere technicalities inappropriate for appellate reappreciation at the interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,bhuwan GoyalView PDF
-
23-Feb-2026
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,sameer JainView PDF
-
11-Feb-2026
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,sameer JainView PDF
-
05-Feb-2026
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,sameer JainView PDF
-
02-Dec-2025
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,bhuwan GoyalView PDF
-
31-Oct-2025
Mahendar Kumar Goyal,praveer BhatnagarView PDF
-
26-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. SOSA/1859/2025
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed suspension of sentence applications filed by two convicts, Raja @ Rajaram and Banwari Lal, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34. The court found the prosecution evidence—including credible eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons, forensic blood evidence, and postmortem findings of multiple fatal injuries—sufficient to uphold conviction, rejecting arguments about witness credibility and evidentiary gaps as mere technicalities inappropriate for appellate reappreciation at the interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts