Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1104/2022
1. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju S/o Sh. Manphool Ram, Aged
About 26 Years, Ward No. 11, Sri Karanpur, P.S. Sri
Karanpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
2. Maniram @ Munna S/o Sh. Govindram, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Sri Karanpur, P.S. Sri Karanpur,
Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail,
Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/12/2022
The instant application for suspension of sentences has been
filed by the appellants challenged the order dated 11.11.2022
passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.2, Sri Ganganagar in
Sessions Case No.232/2021 whereby the appellant have been
convicted for the offences under Section 9(G)/10 of POCSO Act
and Section 451 and 354/34 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned public
prosecutor on application of suspension of sentences.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that patently a
false case has been foisted against the appellants with an ulterior
(2 of 4) [SOSA-1104/2022]
object to chastise him. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. The
presence of two witnesses who happened to be near relatives of
the prosecutrix at the crime scene are highly suspicious and it
seems that they are tailor-made witness. There is serious
discrepancy in the averments made in the FIR, in the statement of
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She is not
getting corroboration of the same fact of the incident from the so
called eye witness Farman and Shamsher. The material
improvement made by the witnesses casts serious doubt over the
genuineness of the allegations. It is further submitted that in the
FIR which came to be lodged after five days of the incident, it is
stated that the accused caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix
and touched her private parts but, when she examined during
trial, she made serious improvement by saying that the accused
tried to strip her by untying her lower. Learned counsel drew
attention on the several discrepancies and then submits that in
view of the incongruencies appearing in the case of the
prosecution, the conviction of the appellants is highly
questionable. Appellants were on bail during the trial
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application for suspension of sentences and contends that there
are allegations of molestation of a minor girl, however he too does
not dispute regarding the infirmity appearing in the case of the
prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Upon a consideration of the overall submission and carefully
scanning the record of the case and the fact that earlier also
(3 of 4) [SOSA-1104/2022]
appellants were on bail and looking to the fact that hearing of the
appeal will likely to take long time, this court is of the opinion that
it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused
appellants.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.2, Sri
Ganganagar vide judgment dated 11.11.2022 in Sessions Case
No. 232/2021 against the appellant-applicants No. 1. Sanjay
Kumar @ Sanju S/o Sh. Manphool Ram and No. 2. Maniram @
Munna S/o Sh. Govindram shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail,
provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
court on 10.01.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
(4 of 4) [SOSA-1104/2022]
accused-applicant(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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
101-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
