Pooranmal Meena Son Of Shri Ramdev vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3487 Raj/2

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D. B. Cri. Misc. (SOS) Application No. 1276/2021

                                            IN

                     D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/2021

     Pooranmal Meena Son Of Shri Ramdev, Aged About 22 Years,
     Resident Of Kushalpura, Tan Raisar, P.S. Jamwa Ramgarh, Dist.
     Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Petitioner Is Currently In Judicial Custody In
     Central Jail, Jaipur)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                        Versus
     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGC

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 02/05/2022

Heard on application for suspension of sentence of the

appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that impugned

judgment for conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law

because the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the

prosecutrix in accordance with law as the author of the document

(entries made in the school register) was not examined and the

father of the prosecutrix PW-7 has emphatically stated in the court

that he does not know the age of his daughter. Except this, it is

contended that no other evidence has been brought on record to

prove the age of the prosecutrix.

(2 of 3) [SOS-1276/2021]

As far as the statement of prosecutrix is concerned, it is

stated that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has clearly

stated that she has not disclosed to the police that the appellant

had committed anything wrong to her. Her statement before the

Magistrate was recorded after she was brought back from the

house of maternal uncle after ten days. Prosecutrix has further

stated that even before the date of incident she had talked to the

appellant. She has denied that she was forcefully taken away by

the appellant. She has admitted that on the pressure of her

family members, she got a false report lodged against the

appellant. Appellant, never forcefully abducted her, nor

committed any rape upon her.

On the other hand, learned state counsel has submitted that

the trial court has recorded the finding with regard to the age of

the prosecutrix based on the certificate (Ex-P9) issued by the

school Head-Master. Therefore, even if there is no other

independent oral evidence in this regard, the certificate by itself is

a reliable evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix because

she was said to be minor and for that reason, irrespective of

consent, offence is made out.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties, particularly taking into consideration the nature of the

evidence which is led by prosecution to prove the age of

prosecutrix and further taking into consideration what has been

stated by prosecutrix in her cross-examination, as has been

argued before us, we are inclined to allow this application for

suspension of sentence of the applicant.

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence

(3 of 3) [SOS-1276/2021]

awarded to the appellant is suspended and he shall be released on

bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-along with

two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court, for his appearance before the concerned Trial Court on

03.06.2022 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.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Pooja/44

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)