Prahlad vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3622 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3622 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prahlad vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 April, 2023

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2023/RJJD/012124]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 364/2023 Prahlad S/o Durga Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Mata Ji Ka Gaon Ps Diver Dist. Rajsamand Raj. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Madan Lal Salvi, Ambakhera Teh.

Deogarh, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
                                     Order
26/04/2023

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant-appellant in the matter of

judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act, 2012 and Commissions for Protection of Child Rights

Act, 2005, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.49/2019 whereby he

was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of

20 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- in

default 3 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) of

IPC and 5(1)/6 POCSO Act and lesser punishment for the other

offences under Sections 363 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it would be

manifested from the bare perusal of the statement of victim that

she joined the association of the appellant at her own free will and

volition and she eloped against the wishes of her parents. For the

[2023/RJJD/012124] (2 of 4) [SOSA-364/2023]

purpose of solemnizing the marriage they went to the court

premises of Pratapgarh and met with a counsel and appended her

signature on some documents for the marriage purpose, thus, a

safe inference of consent can easily be drawn. To question the

veracity of the age related document submitted at the instance of

the prosecution, learned counsel submits that the variance and

discrepancy in respect of her age can very well be noticed from

the testimonies of the prosecution witness and as such it cannot

be said with utmost certainty that at relevant point of time she

was below 18 years. Learned counsel states that the girl herself

had stated that she was around 17 years of age and when she got

the admission in school she was of 9 years of age. The prosecution

brought a document, as per which, she was 14 years nevertheless

the documentary proof viz. Birth Certificate or Certificate from

Statistics Department or the Hospital has not been produced. The

document of the school first attended by the victim has

deliberately been suppressed. The mother of the victim P.W.3 Sita

has candidly admitted in cross-examination that she married 25

years ago and after 2 years she begotten a girl child named

Guddu and after one and a half years she gave birth to the victim.

If it is taken as true then the age of the girl becomes more that 18

years. Learned counsel further submits that where discrepancy in

regard to the age of the victim comes, the evidence of the parents

of the victim should be given primacy.

3. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu @ Undrya Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in AIR 2006 SC 508.

[2023/RJJD/012124] (3 of 4) [SOSA-364/2023]

4. Arguing further, it is contended on behalf of the applicant-

appellant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the

correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached

at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is

required to be appreciated again by this court. Learned counsel for

the applicant-appellant also submits that hearing of the appeal is

likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension

of sentence may be granted.

5. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel for the

applicant for releasing the applicant-appellant on application for

suspension of sentence.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. Upon consideration of the grounds raised in the memo of the

appeal, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the

case, more particularly the fact that the hearing of appeal is likely

to take further more time and considering the overall submissions

while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the

matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an

adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion

that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the

accused-appellant.

8. Accordingly, the present application for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that the sentences passed learned Special Judge, POCSO

Act, 2012 and Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,

2005, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 05.11.2022 in Sessions

Case No.49/2019 against the appellant-applicant Prahlad S/o

[2023/RJJD/012124] (4 of 4) [SOSA-364/2023]

Durga Lal remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid

appeal and he/she/they shall be released on bail, provided

he/she/each execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned

trial court for his/her/their appearance in this Court on

26.05.2023 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) change(s) the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his changed address(es) to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.