Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdev vs State on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 833/2020
Ramdev S/o Shri Narpat Ram, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Nayak,
R/o Jhathera, P.s. Surpaliya, District Nagaur (Raj.). (At Present
Lodged At Central Jail Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamwant Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Judgment
11/01/2021
Heard. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel Shri Gurjar submits that the first application
for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant was
withdrawn for want of instructions and thus, he would like to
argue the instant application for suspension of sentences on
merits. He contends that there is no evidence on the record of the
case so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the
offence under the POCSO Act. He further urges that the child was
not subjected to sexual assault and thus, the appellant deserves
indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel and
points out that not only did the victim, fully support the allegation
(2 of 3) [SOSA-833/2020]
of sexual assault attributed to the appellant but such allegation is
also fortified from the medical evidence as deposed by PW.1
Dr. Alkendra Mohan Singh who in his statement, categorically
stated that numerous injuries were noticed on the chest, thighs
etc. of the victim and that her hymen was also inflamed when her
medical examination was carried out. He thus, urges that the
appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of
appeal.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
Shri Gurjar, Advocate representing the appellant-applicant and
have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
Penetrative sexual assault is defined under Section 3 of the
POCSO Act which reads as below:
"3. Penetrative sexual assault. - A person is said to
commit "penetrative sexual assault" if
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the
child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the
body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or
anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or
any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so
as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or
any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so
with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus,
urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such
person or any other person."
A bare perusal of Section 3(a) indicates that penetration of a
male private part "to any extent" into the private parts of a child
falls within the definition of Penetrative Sexual Assault, punishable
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In this background, we are of
(3 of 3) [SOSA-833/2020]
the firm opinion that at this stage, the contention of learned
counsel Shri Gurjar that there is no evidence on record of the case
to connect the appellant for penetrative sexual assault with the
victim child is not tenable. Accordingly, the instant second
application for suspension of sentences is dismissed as being
devoid of merit. The appeal shall be listed for hearing in the
suitable order of priority.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
18-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
