Rajasthan High Court
Imran S/O Sh. Guldeen Alias Kale vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.506/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 785/2021
Imran S/o Sh. Guldeen Alias Kale, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Behind Jama Masjid, Rasala, Near Shahganj Chowki,
Hindaun City, P.S. Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj) (Presently
In Distt. Jail At Karauli Distt. Karauli)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.420/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 641/2021
Shahrukh Son Of Islam @ Mote, Aged About 21 Years, Resident
Of Infront Of Hanuman Talkies, Peelu Wali Masjid Hindaun City
(At Present In District Jail, Karauli)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma
Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
16/11/2021
1. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellants have filed the appeals along with applications
(2 of 4) [SOSA-506/2021 & 420/2021]
for suspension of sentence.
3. The appeals have been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2021 and 24.02.2021 passed
by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection
Act, 2005, Karauli (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.144/2018 (CIS
No.144/2018), by which the appellants have been convicted for
offences under Sections 363 read with 120-B IPC, 366-A read with
120-B IPC, 376-D of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, and
sentenced to maximum term of twenty years.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants
that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the cases. The
prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Her date of birth
has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence by the
prosecution. The prosecutrix has herself admitted that at the time
of incident, she was above 18 years of age. The statement of
prosecutrix are unreliable. Her statement suffers from material
contradictions and infirmities. In her cross-examination, she has
resiled from her statement given under Sections 161 and 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has admitted that the FIR
was dictated by the Police to her and further there is admission of
the prosecutrix that her statements recorded under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure were given according to the
pressure of Police and other people. She has further admitted that
at the time of her statement under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, she did not know the accused by name. No
identification parade was conducted during the investigation. Her
(3 of 4) [SOSA-506/2021 & 420/2021]
age as per her "Aadhar Card" and "Ration Card" is of the year
2000, according to which, she is major. There was no admission in
the 1st class but she was directly admitted to the 4th Class. As per
the statement of prosecutrix, she was not knowing about the
names of the accused-persons till the recording of the statement
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was
also tutored, as per her own version. Therefore, the prosecution
case can not be relied upon. Further, it has been argued that the
DNA report, upon which conviction is based, has not been
exhibited or tendered in evidence recorded during statement of
any witness. Learned counsel for the appellant have also referred
to statements of PW-5-Mansingh, PW-6-Paramjeet and PW-8-
Lakhiram and have submitted that those statements render the
prosecution story false and fabricated. The whole prosecution case
becomes false. During trial, the appellants were on bail. Now, they
have served more than one year and three months sentence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the
evidence available on record carefully.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for
suspension of sentence.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel
for the appellants, evidence available on record and overall facts
and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon
detailed merits of the cases, this Court deems just and proper to
allow the applications for suspension of sentence.
8. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-
appellants (1) Imran S/o Sh. Guldeen Alias Kale (2) Shahrukh Son
(4 of 4) [SOSA-506/2021 & 420/2021]
Of Islam @ Mote shall remain suspended till disposal of these
criminal appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided each
of the appellants 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 their appearance in
this Court on 16th December, 2021 and as and when called upon to
do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Sunita/43-44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
