Satyender @ Pintu @ Mintu S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7665 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence)

                      Application No.815/2020

                                       In

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1082/2020

Satyender @ Pintu @ Mintu S/o Shri Dharmender, R/o Amarpura
Khurd, PS Singhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
At Present In District Jail, Jhunjhunu
                                                         ----Accused-Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailender Singh Balwada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Order

15/12/2021

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

The appellant has filed the appeal along with application for

suspension of sentence.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order

of conviction dated 02.07.2020 passed by the Court of Special

Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and

Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Jhunjhunu in

Sessions Case No.25/2019 (CIS No.25/2019), by which the

appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 r/w 366A of IPC

and Section 376 of IPC r/w 3/4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced

(2 of 3)

to maximum term of seven years.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant

that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

Statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, even the

trial court has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on

record to suggest that the offence was committed by force. Age of

the prosecutrix is between seventeen to eighteen years. The

appellant has been sentenced to a maximum term of seven years

of sentence, out of which he has already served two years and

seven months of sentence. There are material contradictions and

infirmities in the prosecution evidence. The prosecutrix went with

the appellant on her own free will and despite being in public

places during her journey and stay, she did not raise any protest

against the appellant. Hearing of appeal may take long time.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for

suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the

evidence available on record carefully.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel

for the appellant, overall facts and circumstances of the case but

without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court

deems just and proper to allow the application for suspension of

sentence.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-

appellant Satyender @ Pintu @ Mintu S/o Shri Dharmender

shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and he

(3 of 3)

be released on bail, provided the appellant furnishes a personal

bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance in this

Court on 17th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do

so.

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

Hemant/47

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)