Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh Sahu S/O Ram Kishan Sahu vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 November, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1381/2021
Mukesh Sahu S/o Ram Kishan Sahu, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Kotdapar, Polce Station Bapcha At Present
Dharnawada Road, Near Safalta School, Chhabra, Police Station
Chhabra, District Baran (Raj) (At Present Confined District Jail,
Baran (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
12/11/2021
Heard.
Appeal is admitted.
S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.813/2021
Heard on application for suspension of sentence.
The appellant has filed the appeal along with
application for suspension of sentence.
The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Court of
Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Protection of Child Right
Commission Act, 2005 No.2, Baran (Rajasthan) in Session Case
No.25/2019 (CIS No.167/2018), by which the appellant has been
convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 368 and
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-1381/2021]
370(4) of IPC and Section 5/6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 and sentenced to maximum term of ten years.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this
case. As per certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High
Court Rules, the appellant was on bail during trial. Presently, he is
confined in District Jail, Baran from the date of impugned
judgment dated 25.08.2021. There is no allegation of rape against
the present appellant. He has been convicted for offences under
Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 368 and 370(4) of IPC and Section 5/6
read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecutrix was
examined as PW-11. In her cross-examination, she stated the
facts which make it unreliable is that any offence was committed
by the present appellant against the prosecutrix. On certain
points, she has been contradicted by the prosecution after
declaring her as hostile witness. Hearing of the appeal may take
long time.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the
evidence available on record carefully.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application
for suspension of sentence.
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.
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1381/2021]
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence
is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-
appellant Mukesh Sahu S/o Ram Kishan Sahu shall remain
suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and he shall be
released on bail, provided the appellant furnishes a personal bond
of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his
appearance in this Court on 13th December, 2021 and as and when
called upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Sunita/20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
