Rajasthan High Court
Mosin Khan S/O Khalil Ahmad vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No. 1888/2019
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2667/2019
Mosin Khan S/o Khalil Ahmad, R/o A-18, Gandhi Vihar, Kho
Nagoriyan Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No. 969/2020
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2301/2019
1. Adil Qureshi S/o Nizamuddin, R/o Raigaron Ka Mohalla,
Rahim Nagar, Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur. (At Present Lodged In
The Central Jail Jaipur)
2. Babu Khan S/o Mohammad Zaheer, R/o Bus Stand
Shahpura, Jaipur (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail
Jaipur)
3. Nazim Saifi S/o Kameem Saifi, R/o 10, Gandhi Vihar, Kho
Nagoriyan, Jaipur (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail
Jaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension of Sentence
Application No. 1076/2020
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2360/2019
Mohseen S/o Shri Babu Khan, R/o Chacha Ki Char Dukan Near
Madina Nagar, Ravi Vihar, Kho-Nagoriyan, Jaipur (At Present
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-1888/2019]
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tejaswani Sharma
Mr. Ashvin Garg
Mr. Amit Kumar Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
06/08/2021
1. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.
2. It is contended by counsels for the appellants that there is a
delay of two months in lodging of FIR. Prosecutrix has stated that
her husband asked to lodge the FIR. It is also contended that P.W.
1-Firoz Khan (husband of prosecutrix) has turned hostile. He has
stated that he is not aware of any incident. It is further contended
that prosecutrix-P.W. 2 has denied giving statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. She has
also denied that she was shown some obscene photographs or
video clippings. It is also contended that prosecutrix has given
evidence that she informed her husband about the incident on the
same day. However, no FIR was lodged on that day and the FIR
was lodged after an inordinate delay of two months. It is further
contended that appellants have been acquitted for offence of
Sections 384 and 323 IPC. It is also contended that appellants
have remained in custody for a period of about three years.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1888/2019]
suspension of sentence.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. Prosecutrix is a married lady who has lodged the present FIR
after an inordinate delay of two months. Her husband has turned
hostile. Court below has acquitted the accused persons for offence
under Sections 384 and 323 of I.P.C. No obscene material has
been recovered and prosecutrix herself has stated that she has
not seen any obscene video clippings. Prosecutrix has also stated
that she has not given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. &
and 164 Cr.P.C. Appellants have remained in custody for a period
of about three years.
6. Considering the contentions of counsel for the appellants and
taking note of the above facts, applications for suspension of
sentence are allowed.
7. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are
allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-
applicants in Session Case No.576/2018 shall remain suspended if
the appellants 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 they shall appear
before this Court as and when called upon to do so.
8. A copy of this order be placed in connected files.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /4-6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
