Sanjay Kumar S/O Puran Mal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7112 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

 S. B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence App. No. 535/2021

                                        IN

                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 881/2021

Sanjay Kumar S/o Puran Mal, R/o Khidarpur Police Station
Sheikhpur Ahir District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Accused Appellant Is
Confined In District Jail Alwar)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Order

02/12/2021

1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

2. The appellant has filed the appeal along with

application for suspension of sentence.

3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment

dated 01.04.2021 passed by court of Special Judge, Special Court,

POCSO Act, No. 1, Alwar (Raj.) in Session Case No. 145/2018 by

which the appellant has been convicted for offence/s under

Sections 363, 366, 376-AB of IPC and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act

and sentenced to maximum term of 20 years imprisonment.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

applicant that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

(2 of 3) [SOSA-535/2021]

There are several material contradictions and infirmities in the

prosecution evidence. The facts narrated in the FIR-Ex.P4 and

facts narrated in the statements of the prosecutrix are

contradictory. The prosecutrix has stated in her statements under

Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure that the appellant

forcibly took her to the field but thereafter what happened she

does not know. It is further submitted that DNA report is negative

in this case. Medical evidence also does not support the

prosecution version. The appellant has been falsely implicated

due to enmity of property between the parties. The appellant has

already served more than three years of sentence. Hearing of the

appeal may take long time.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submitted that the appellant has been sentenced

to 20 years of imprisonment for offence under Section 5M/6 of

POCSO Act. During trial, appellant was not on bail. Prosecution

evidence consistently supports the allegation that offence was

committed against the prosecutrix who was about 9 to 10 years of

age at the time of incident. Hence, looking to the gravity of the

offence, the application may be dismissed. In this regard, learned

Public Prosecutor has referred to statements of PW1-prosecutrix,

PW2-father of the prosecutrix, PW3-mother of the prosecutrix and

PW14-Dr. Sarita Vijay, who prepared the medical examination

report of the prosecutrix

6. Heard both the parties and perused the evidence

available on record carefully.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties, evidence available on record, particularly

(3 of 3) [SOSA-535/2021]

the statements PW1 (Prosecutrix), PW2 (father of the

prosecutrix), PW3 (mother of the prosecutrix) and PW14 (Dr.

Sarita Vijay, who medically examined the prosecutrix) and overall

facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of

the offence, but without commenting upon detailed merits of the

case, no ground is made out for allowing the suspension of

sentence application.

8. Dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

Pooja /50

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)