Ramlal @ Ramu vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 9639 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 95/2022

Ramlal @ Ramu S/o Gheesa Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Jawad Darwaja, Meeno Ka Mohalla, Nimbahera, P.s. Kotwali Nimbahera, Dist. Chitorgarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 81/2022 Gordhan S/o Narsing Mali, Aged About 45 Years, Nearby Satya Narain Temple, Kasod Darwaja, Nimbahera Kotwali Police Station, Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh (Confined In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Punia Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. RR Chapparwal, PP Mr. Zafar Khan for Complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment / Order

25/07/2022

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 95/2022

After attempting to argue the matter on merits for quite

some time, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

[SOSA-95/2022]

he does not want to press this Criminal Misc Suspension Of

Sentence Application (Appeal) No.95/2022.

Accordingly, this Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence

Application (Appeal) No.95/2022 is dismissed as not pressed.

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 81/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for

suspension of sentence No.135/2022.

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 punishable under Section

363, 366, 366A of IPC and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of POCSO Act,

2012.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted

that initially the appellant-applicant is not named in the FIR and

even the victim has also not named him in her statement recorded

under Section 161 CrPC. It is submitted that for the first time the

victim has named the appellant-applicant in her statement

recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

It is further submitted that allegation of abduction and

sexual assault have been levelled against co-accused Ramlal,

however, the appellant-applicant is being implicated only because

co-accused Ramlal was his employee. Learned counsel for the

appellant-applicant has further submitted that the incident of

sexual assault is of 28.02.2019, however, the FIR in the matter

was lodged only on 30.03.2019 and no sufficient explanation

regarding the said delay has been given. It is also submitted that

[SOSA-95/2022]

the undergarments of the victim and co-accused Ramlal have been

sent to FSL, wherein the undergarments of the victim were

matched with the semen of co-accused Ramlal, however, no such

evidence of this effect is available on record against the appellant-

applicant. It is also submitted that the appellant-applicant is in

custody from 10.06.2019 and there is every likelihood that the

appeal preferred by the appellant-applicant will not be heard in

near future.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the application for suspension of

sentence preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case; after scrutinizing the record of the trial court,

particularly keeping in view the fact that the FSL report of the

undergarments of the victim as well as of co-accused Ramlal is

indicating guilt of the co-accused Ramlal, however, no such piece

of evidence is available on record against the appellant-applicant

and taking into consideration fact that his name was not figured in

the complaint, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive

sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence

No.135/2022 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive

sentences passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases),

Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 11.11.2021 in Sessions Case

No.46/2019 against appellant-applicant - Gordhan S/o Narsing

Mali shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid

[SOSA-95/2022]

appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this court on

29.08.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of

the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, 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-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-appellant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 35-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)