Rajendra Singh @ Golu vs State Of Rajasthan ...

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajendra Singh @ Golu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2024

Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni

[2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 570/2024
                                           IN
                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No.84/2024

Rajendra Singh @ Golu S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Chak 15 A Police Station Anoopgarh. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. D.S. Thind
                                   Mr. Amit Kumar
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order 24/05/2024

1. This application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the appellant, who has been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376-D of IPC and has been awarded sentence as under:-

Offence                     Sentence                          Fine
376(2)(n) IPC               10 years' R.I.                    Rs.30,000/-      in
                                                              default of payment
                                                              to 2 years' R.I.
376-D IPC                   L.I. until death                  Rs.50,000/-      in
                                                              default of payment
                                                              to 3 years' R.I.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the story projected by the victim does not appear to be reliable and appeal (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:56:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024] to prudence. Inviting Court's attention towards the backdrop facts, learned counsel highlighted that as per the testimony of victim, immediately after the sexual assault by the appellant and his friends, her uncle (Tau) had come on the terrace; whereafter he fell down or he was pushed down and it was after the uncle fell down, she was taken to a third place and gang raped, is totally false and unbelievable.

3. He submitted that after investigation the police did not find any offence under Section 302 made out against the present appellant or against any of the co-accused persons and even her allegation that her uncle was pushed down has not been found correct. He argued that the story as projected and deposed by the prosecutrix in her Court statement is unbelievable and the accusation of gang rape against the present appellant is absolutely baseless, particularly when the uncle and his wife (Tau and Tai) were living in the same house.

4. Learned counsel contended that it cannot be believed that the victim was firstly gang raped by five persons in her house and despite her uncle (Tau) having fallen from the stairs and got injured, she was taken to a place other than her residence and raped by five persons. He invited Court's attention towards the discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix vis-a-vis other witnesses.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

6. Having sifted through the record, more particularly statements of witnesses, we feel that the testimony of the prosecutrix prima-facie does not inspire confidence; committing (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:56:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024] sexual assault by five persons on two occasions within one night at 11 PM in a place which houses two of her relatives and then her abduction from the house followed by another sexual encounter is easy to allege but difficult to believe. Her other story that she was then taken to tank and hanged is preposterous on the one hand and has been completely negated by the other witnesses.

7. The alleged incident took place on 11.05.2015 and the written report came to be lodged by father of the prosecutrix on 29.05.2015. There is no justification or explanation of the delay in reporting the incident to the police.

8. The latter part of the story in which the prosecutrix claims that the appellant and accused persons took her to the tank and hanged her, has turned out to be a complete lie. Given that the water tank is just near the police station and that other witness including her mother Jasveer Kaur (PW-3) has completely belied the story and stated that she alone went towards the water tank, we are of the view that her testimony cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth.

9. That apart, the appellant has remained incarcerated for more than eight years. Hence, we consider it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of appellant is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.88/2020 (71/15) vide judgment dated 26.02.2024 against the appellant - Rajendra Singh @ Golu S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:56:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024] criminal appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance in this Court on 01.07.2024 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions: -

1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly if sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court

8. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Session Case in which the accused applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DINESH MEHTA),J 30-Suraj/-

(Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:56:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)