Rajasthan High Court
Hari [email protected] S/O Shri Jugal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application for Suspension of Sentence
No. 569/2020
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 719/2020
Hari [email protected] S/o Shri Jugal @ Juglal, R/o Charni Ki
Dhani, Tan Hemantpura Police Station Gudhagaudji, Distt.
Jhunjhunu Raj. (Presently Lodged In Distt. Jail Jhunjhunu)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aamir Aziz, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
27/07/2021
1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 by which the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section 366 IPC Ten years RI with fine of
Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo
additional RI of six months.
Under Section 376-D IPC Twenty years RI with fine of
Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo
additional RI of six months.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that the filing of FIR was delayed by ten days and it was
a matter of consent. Applicant-Hari Singh @ Hanuman has been
wrongly implicated in this case. His name does not appear either
in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and
164 of Cr.P.C. He has been later on involved on the basis of
(2 of 2) [SOSA569/2020]
statement of prosecturix and identification report. There is no
evidence on record to connect the present applicant with the
crime. He was on bail during trial. As per Ex.P-20, the vehicle in
question was purchased by the applicant on 30.1.2018 while the
incident started from 25.01.2018. There are no call records
connecting the applicant with the crime.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that as per statement of prosecutrix, it
has been proved that the name of driver was wrongly mentioned
to the prosecutrix and that is the reason why the name of present
applicant does not appear in the FIR and in the statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. During Identification Parade, the prosecutrix
has identified the present applicant as a person (driver) who had
committed gang rape upon her. In this regard, learned Public
Prosecutor has referred the statements of prosecutrix PW2 and
the statements of PW21-Jitu Singh Meena, who had conducted the
Identification Parade in which prosecutrix had identified the
present applicant as a person who had committed gang rape upon
her. Identification Parade report has been exhibited as Ex.P12.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the evidence
available on record carefully.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions put forth 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 granting the
suspension of sentence application.
6. Dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Pooja /18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
