Arvind Choudhary Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3448 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Arvind Choudhary Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
                               No. 71/2020
                                       IN
                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 86/2020

Arvind Choudhary Son Of Shri Omprakash, Aged About 19 Years,
Resident Of Village Salavaali, Tehsil Sihodi, Trilokpura, P.s.
Ajeetgarh, District Sikar, (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Prathishtha Sunger, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 05/08/2021

1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of three years and seven months. It is also contended that prosecutrix did not raise any alarm and stayed with the appellant for a pretty long time.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that prosecutrix is a thirteen year old girl who in her Court statement has levelled allegations of rape against the appellant.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. Taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix was aged thirteen (Downloaded on 07/08/2021 at 09:43:08 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-86/2020] years. Even the argument that she went on her own free will and it was a matter of consent, the same cannot be made a ground for allowing the application for suspension of sentence, as consent is immaterial as the victim was aged only thirteen years and ten months at the time of the alleged offence. I do not find any ground for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.

6. Considering the contentions of counsel for the State, I am not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /34 (Downloaded on 07/08/2021 at 09:43:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)