Raju @ Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13014 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 827/2022

Raju @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Shanker Masar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident of Paal Padar Falla Rozela, Bichhiwara Police Station, District Dungarpur (Lodged in District Jail, Dungarpur)

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through PP

2. Haju W/o Nana, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Amjara Police station Bichiwara Dist. Dungarpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagatveer Singh Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

04/11/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for

suspension of sentence.

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

preferred by the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and

sentenced by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases and

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, District

Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.75/2018 vide judgment dated

20.06.2019. The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as

under :-

Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence (in default of payment of fine) 366 IPC 10 years R.I. 5000/- 6 months R.I.

                                        (2 of 4)                 [SOSA-827/2022]


344 IPC           3 years R.I.          5000/-          1 month R.I.
5/6 POCSO Act, Life         10,000/- 1 year R.I.
2012           Imprisonment

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted

that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing

the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is submitted

that from the statement of victim (PW-3), it is clear that she

eloped with the appellant-applicant and lived with him as his wife

for about 4 months. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant

has submitted that though the victim was missing for about 4

months but her parents or any other person have not lodged any

complaint in this regard with the police. It is further submitted

that as a matter of fact, the victim was eloped with the appellant-

applicant and this fact was in the knowledge of parents and family

members of the victim but despite that they have not lodged any

report, however later on, on account of some dispute regarding

payment of wages, the complainant party got annoyed and has

filed this false complaint and the victim under pressure of her

family members has deposed against the appellant-applicant.

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has also submitted

that the prosecution has failed to furnish tenable and reliable

evidence to prove that at the time of incident, the victim was

minor. It is argued that the school documents, on which, the trial

court has placed reliance are not a conclusive proof of the age of

the victim and the documents, on the basis of which, the age of

the victim was mentioned in the S.R. Register as well as of the

transfer certificate have not been produced. Learned counsel for

(3 of 4) [SOSA-827/2022]

the appellant-applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant

is in jail since 25.05.2016 and the appeal filed by him is likely to

take time in final disposal. Learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant has, therefore, submitted that the sentence awarded to

the appellant-applicant by the trial court vide the impugned

judgment may kindly be suspended.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for

suspension of sentence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after carefully

scrutinizing the record of the case and taking into consideration

the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, without expressing any

opinion on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to suspend the

sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial Court vide

judgment impugned.

Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence filed

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

substantive sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO

Act Cases and Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,

2005, District Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.75/2018 against

appellant-applicant Raju @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Shanker

Masar Meena shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid 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 learned trial Judge for his appearance in this

Court on 06.12.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

(4 of 4) [SOSA-827/2022]

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.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                             (VIJAY BISHNOI),J


                                    23-Sachin/AnilKC/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)