Jetendra [email protected] Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3453 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR
     S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
                             No.824/2020
                                      IN

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2033/2019

Jetendra [email protected] Meghwal S/o Shri Shrawan Lal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 19, Veer Tejaji Chock, Sushilpura
Police Station Sodala, Jaipur (Accused Is Lodged At Central Jail
Jaipur)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar 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 appellant

has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment for the

offence under the POCSO Act. It is also contended that the

prosecutrix was more than twenty years of age at the time of

alleged offence. Appellant has remained in custody for a period of

four years and ten months. Learned Trial Court has not considered

the report of the Medical Board, according to which prosecutrix

was more than twenty years of age.

3. My attention has also been drawn towards the statement of

doctor PW-13 who has given the reason for determining the age of

(2 of 2) [SOSA-824/2020]

prosecutrix as more than twenty years. The Court below has relied

on the school certificate of class 8 th. As per the POCSO Act, date of

birth mentioned in the school at the time of entrance of school is

to be considered and in the absence, the opinion given by the

Medical Board is to be considered for determining the age of

prosecutrix.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for

suspension of sentence.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions of counsel for the appellant and

also taking note of the fact that appellant has remained in custody

for a period of four years and ten months, from the evidence of

the doctor, it is evident that the prosecutrix was more than twenty

years of age, which fact has not been considered by the Court

below, I deem it proper to allow the application for suspension of

sentence.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-

applicant in Sessions Case No.75/2018 (307/2017) CIS No.2/2019

shall remain suspended if the appellant furnishes a personal bond

of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall

appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /30

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)