Rajasthan High Court
Rinku @ Takla Son Of Gorkha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.
57/2023
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1064/2022
Rinku @ Takla Son Of Gorkha Ram, Resident Of Palawa Police
Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Presently
Confined In Jail At Alwar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
Mr. S.S. Ola
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
09/01/2023
Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned
Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence
and perused the judgment impugned dated 12.05.2022 passed by
learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 cum Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.3, Alwar whereby the
accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under sections 363, 366, 376(D) of IPC and Section 5m/6 of
POCSO Act and has been sentenced to maximum twenty years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs,10,000/- (in default of
payment of fine further six months additional imprisonment).
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that no
reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix-'A'
who has made significant alteration in her statements made under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and then during trial. It is pleaded
(2 of 3) [SOSA--57/2023]
that the petitioner was a juvenile and other person was Vivek
Kumar who was an adult and was charge-sheered accordingly.
During his trial, the prosecutrix, PW-2 'A', has been examined and
deliberately made exculpatory statement towards him and
therefore he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 17.07.2018
whilst the nature of accusation against the said accused Vivek and
the present petitioner was same in the statements under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is pleaded that the evidence of solitary
witness is not of impeccable quality and therefore basing
conviction would not be in accordance with law. The learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and thus erred in
convicting the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer
made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant.
The accused-appellant is behind the bars and the hearing of
appeal is likely to take further more time, therefore, considering
the overall submissions and looking to the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case 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.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act, 2012 cum Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005, No.3, Alwar, vide judgment dated 12.05.2022 in Sessions
Case No. 65/2019 against the appellant-applicant Rinku @ Takla
Son Of Gorkha Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of
(3 of 3) [SOSA--57/2023]
the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail 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 their appearance in this court on ..... 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) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s),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-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicants were 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 applicants does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
PREETI VALECHA /54
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
