Rajendra Kumar vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 14812 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 713/2020

Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Gugan Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Neema, Police Station Hamirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Churu).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/12/2022

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public

prosecutor on application seeking suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in this case under

instructions of parents of the prosecutrix. The story as narrated by

the prosecutrix is not convincing and even not getting

corroboration from the independent witnesses. As per her

allegations, she was subjected to rape at rough place but no

injuries on her dependent parts were noticed when she was

examine and no other injuries external or internal, mark of

violence or mark of resistance were found in Medial report Exhibit

P-1 prepared by the Board; her hymen was found old ruptured.

There was no definite opinion regarding recent intercourse. The

(2 of 3) [SOSA-713/2020]

case of the prosecution has been belied by the learned Court

below itself when it comes to the age of the prosecutrix and

therefore, the appellant was acquitted from the charges of

Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. The FIR Exhibit P-2 came to be

lodged after much delay of the incident, however, no explanation

whatsoever has been furnished in this regard. The endorsement

made on the back of Exhibit P-2 on the portion G to H clearly

reveals that there was no corresponding injuries as narrated by

her. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is

several flaws in the case of the prosecution and the incongruency

appearing therein goes to the root of the case and makes the case

of the prosecution highly suspicious and therefore, placing reliance

on the same for the purpose of conviction would not be safe. He

asserts that the matter requires de novo appreciation of evidence.

The appellant is behind the bars last 5 years and 10 months and

he has served more than half of the sentence, if he is not released

on bail the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated.

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

sentence awarded to the accused-appellant may be suspended as

the hearing of the appeal may take long time to conclude.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the accused-

appellant for suspending the sentences.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,

Churu vide judgment dated 22.07.2020 in Sessions Case

No.82/2018 (CIS No.139/2017) against the applicant/appellant

Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Gugan Ram shall remain suspended

(3 of 3) [SOSA-713/2020]

till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released

on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this

Court on 16.01.2023 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

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 136-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)