HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Cri. Misc. (SOS) Application No. 1276/2021
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/2021
Pooranmal Meena Son Of Shri Ramdev, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Kushalpura, Tan Raisar, P.S. Jamwa Ramgarh, Dist.
Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Petitioner Is Currently In Judicial Custody In
Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGC HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 02/05/2022 Heard on application for suspension of sentence of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that impugned judgment for conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law because the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in accordance with law as the author of the document (entries made in the school register) was not examined and the father of the prosecutrix PW-7 has emphatically stated in the court that he does not know the age of his daughter. Except this, it is contended that no other evidence has been brought on record to prove the age of the prosecutrix.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2022 at 08:52:40 PM)
(2 of 3) [SOS-1276/2021] As far as the statement of prosecutrix is concerned, it is stated that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has clearly stated that she has not disclosed to the police that the appellant had committed anything wrong to her. Her statement before the Magistrate was recorded after she was brought back from the house of maternal uncle after ten days. Prosecutrix has further stated that even before the date of incident she had talked to the appellant. She has denied that she was forcefully taken away by the appellant. She has admitted that on the pressure of her family members, she got a false report lodged against the appellant. Appellant, never forcefully abducted her, nor committed any rape upon her.
On the other hand, learned state counsel has submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding with regard to the age of the prosecutrix based on the certificate (Ex-P9) issued by the school Head-Master. Therefore, even if there is no other independent oral evidence in this regard, the certificate by itself is a reliable evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix because she was said to be minor and for that reason, irrespective of consent, offence is made out.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which is led by prosecution to prove the age of prosecutrix and further taking into consideration what has been stated by prosecutrix in her cross-examination, as has been argued before us, we are inclined to allow this application for suspension of sentence of the applicant.
Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence (Downloaded on 06/05/2022 at 08:52:40 PM) (3 of 3) [SOS-1276/2021] awarded to the appellant is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 03.06.2022 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.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Pooja/44 (Downloaded on 06/05/2022 at 08:52:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)