Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raimal Ram vs State on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 163/2022
Raimal Ram S/o Shri Koja Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Silosan, Chitalwana P.S. Distt. Jalore.
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur )
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG II
Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
29/04/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application
for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has
submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting
and sentencing the appellant-applicant for the offence under
Section 363, 366(A), 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4, 5(L)/6 of
the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has
submitted that initially a Missing Person Report (Ex.P/6) was
(2 of 5) [SOSA-163/2022]
lodged at the instance of Peera Ram son of Ratna Ram Ji
(PW-6) on 26.11.2017 wherein, it was stated that his minor
daughter aged about 17½ years is missing since 5 AM. It is
further submitted that in the said Missing Person Report, no
suspicion was cast on anyone. However, the victim Mst 'S'
being the minor daughter of PW-6 was recovered on
5.12.2017 from Ahmedabad. She filed a written complaint, in
which, for the first time, the appellant-applicant was named
as the accused. Learned counsel has submitted that in her
written complaint (Ex.P/7), the victim Mst. 'S' stated that she
left her house on her own and, thereafter, the appellant-
applicant met her and both of them went to Sanchore and
thereafter Ahmedabad in a pick-up vehicle. In her police
statement recorded on 5.12.2017 itself, the victim has
reiterated the same allegations stating that she left her house
on her own, however, in her statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/10), she changed the version and
stated that appellant-applicant came in a Bolero vehicle and
had forcibly abducted her while tying her hands and legs. It is
also argued that the victim has falsely stated in her
statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC that appellant-
applicant had forcibly abducted because in her court
statement, again she has stated that she left her house on
her own.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued
that though PW-6 in his complaint dated 26.11.2017 (Ex.P/6)
(3 of 5) [SOSA-163/2022]
has mentioned age of the victim as 17½ years but from his
court statement and statement of the Head Master namely
Dharmendra (PW-15), it is clear that the age in the school
record was recorded without submitting any proof regarding
the date of birth of the victim. Learned counsel has,
therefore, argued that as a matter of fact, the victim was
major on the day of incident and she eloped with the
appellant-applicant as per her own free will, however, the trial
court without properly appreciating the above piece of
evidence has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellant-
applicant vide impugned judgment. It is further argued that
the appellant-applicant is behind bars since 7.12.2017 and
hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus, prayed
that the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the
trial court may be suspended till pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application for suspension of sentences and argued that the
prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant-
applicant before the trial court and the trial court has rightly
convicted and sentenced him vide impugned judgment,
therefore, no case for suspension of sentence is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
scrutinized the record.
In the Missing Person Report (Ex.P/6), the appellant-
applicant has not been named. The victim, in her written
compliant, police statement and in her court statement has
(4 of 5) [SOSA-163/2022]
stated that she left her house on her own. The complainant
(PW-6), in his court statement, has clearly stated that he got
recorded age of the victim in the school record on mere
guess. The appellant-applicant is in custody since 7.12.2017
and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and without making any
observation on the merits of the case, we are inclined to
suspend the sentence of the applicant.
Accordingly, this second application for suspension of
sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence
passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,
Jalore in Sessions Case No.17/2018 vide judgment dated
25.9.2018 against the appellant-applicant - Raimal Ram S/o
Shri Koja Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid criminal appeal provided he executes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court for his appearance in this Court on 27.6.2022 and
subsequently before the trial court on the following
conditions:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial court in
the month of January every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the appellant(s) change the place of
residence, he/she/they will give the changed address in
writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to
his/her/their counsel in the High Court.
(5 of 5) [SOSA-163/2022]
3. Similarly if sureties change his/her/their address,
they will give in writing his/her/their changed address
to the trial court.
The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance
of the accused appellant(s) in a separate file. Such file be
registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case
in which the accused appellant(s) was/were tried and
convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that
file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken
into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and
disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused
appellant(s) do/does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial judge shall report the matter to the High Court
for cancellation of bail.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
4-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
