Ajit Kumawat S/O Shri Santosh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1399 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

 D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1312/2021

                                         In
                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 219/2021

Ajit Kumawat S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Kumawat, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Kumawaton Ka Mohalla, Manoharpur Police Station Manoharpur
District Jaipur.
(Accused Appellant At Present Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

                                                                    ----Appellant

                                      Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

                                                                  ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP for the State Mr. Bhoopendra Singh Maderna, Advocate for the complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment / Order

09/02/2022

Heard on application for Suspension of Sentence and grant of bail

filed by the appellant-Ajit Kumawat.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the statement

of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is clear that the relationship between the

appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature.

On the aspect of evidence of age, learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that no clinching evidence of the age of the prosecutrix has

been brought by the prosecution, except certain entries made in the

school register basis of which is not clearly disclosed by the father of the

prosecutrix. According to him, at the time of admission, the date of birth

was declared by the grand-father of the prosecutrix and not by the

father. Moreover, the prosecution has not come out with any other

(2 of 2)

evidence in the form of the ossification test to support the prosecution

story with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and even according to the

prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged

commission of offence was almost eighteen years. The appellant has

undergone approximately three months of jail sentence.

On the other hand, learned state counsel has opposed and

submitted that the argument on consensual nature of relationship is

immaterial because according to the prosecution evidence, both oral and

documentary in nature, on the date of incident, she was though more

than seventeen years but definitely less than eighteen years.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties and taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix

herself and the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as also

taking into consideration the nature of evidence with regard to the age of

the prosecutrix and that the appellant has undergone more than three

months of jail sentence, we are inclined to suspend the jail sentence.

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

is allowed. It is directed that substantive jail sentence awarded to the

appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- alongwith two local sureties of

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance

before the concerned trial court on 31.03.2022 and on all such further

dates as may be directed by the said court, interval being not less than

one year, during the pendency of the appeal.

List the appeal for final hearing.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /46

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)