HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1312/2021
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 219/2021
Ajit Kumawat S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Kumawat, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Kumawaton Ka Mohalla, Manoharpur Police Station Manoharpur
District Jaipur.
(Accused Appellant At Present Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP for the State Mr. Bhoopendra Singh Maderna, Advocate for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment / Order 09/02/2022 Heard on application for Suspension of Sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant-Ajit Kumawat.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is clear that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature.
On the aspect of evidence of age, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no clinching evidence of the age of the prosecutrix has been brought by the prosecution, except certain entries made in the school register basis of which is not clearly disclosed by the father of the prosecutrix. According to him, at the time of admission, the date of birth was declared by the grand-father of the prosecutrix and not by the father. Moreover, the prosecution has not come out with any other (Downloaded on 11/02/2022 at 09:27:45 PM) (2 of 2) evidence in the form of the ossification test to support the prosecution story with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and even according to the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged commission of offence was almost eighteen years. The appellant has undergone approximately three months of jail sentence.
On the other hand, learned state counsel has opposed and submitted that the argument on consensual nature of relationship is immaterial because according to the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary in nature, on the date of incident, she was though more than seventeen years but definitely less than eighteen years.
Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix herself and the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as also taking into consideration the nature of evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and that the appellant has undergone more than three months of jail sentence, we are inclined to suspend the jail sentence.
Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- alongwith two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance before the concerned trial court on 31.03.2022 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said court, interval being not less than one year, during the pendency of the appeal.
List the appeal for final hearing.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /46 (Downloaded on 11/02/2022 at 09:27:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)