Rajasthan High Court
Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3595) on 22 January, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:3595]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 203/2023
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.152/2023
Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/o Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Near Bajigar Basti Village Karmgarh, Police Station Tuliwal
District Barnala State Punjab (At Present Confined In District Jail
Sikar)
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
22/01/2024
This Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application is
preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed by the
Special Court, Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act,
2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.2 Sikar
in Sessions Case No.87/2019, whereby, the accused-appellant
Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi was convicted for the offence under
Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. along
with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to
undergo additional 1 year's S.I. and for the offence under Section
366 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years' R.I. along with fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo
additional six months' S.I. The offence under Section 3(K)/4 of
POCSO Act was not proved.
[2024:RJ-JP:3595] (2 of 4) [SOSA-203/2023]
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that
learned trial court after considering the evidence opined that age
of victim is above 18 years and the same has been mentioned in
the impugned judgment at page No.12. He further submits that
accused-appellant and prosecutrix were having love affair and
prosecutrix at her own will roamed with the accused-appellant.
The accused-appellant did not use any force and whatever
happened between the accused-appellant and prosecutrix, it was
with the consent of the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that prosecutrix PW-1 in her cross-examination at page No.2 has
admitted that she was regularly chatting with the accused-
appellant through voice call as well as video calls. She has also
admitted that they went together with the accused-appellant from
Khatushyam Ji to Ringas in an auto and she did not make any
alarm in the auto that accused-appellant is carrying her forcibly in
the auto. In the cross-examination she has also stated that from
Ringas they went to Punjab and there also they roamed for six
days at various places, therefore, the learned trial court has erred
in recording the finding that accused-appellant committed rape
with the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable.
Further PW-13 Investigation Officer Surendra Kumar Saini has
admitted that he did not collect any chat details transmitted
between prosecutrix and accused-appellant. He also submits that
accused-appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. The
accused-appellant is in custody since 13.07.2019, so also the
decision of the appeal may take considerable, therefore, sentence
[2024:RJ-JP:3595] (3 of 4) [SOSA-203/2023]
awarded to the accused-appellant may be suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
suspension of sentence application.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of
sentence and perused the material available on record.
The learned trial court has categorically held that prosecutrix
was above 18 years. After recording the finding on the age of the
victim, the learned trial court did not find commission of offence
under Section 3(K)/4 of POCSO Act.
After considering the fact that prosecutrix has admitted that
she was having regular chats with the accused-appellant and did
not make any alarm while roaming with the accused-appellant at
various places. The accused-appellant has remained in custody for
more than four and half years, so also considering that hearing of
the appeal may take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the
accused-appellant during pendency of the instant appeal.
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 Special Court, Protection of Children From
Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission
Act, 2005, No.2 Sikar vide judgment dated 20.12.2022 in in
Sessions Case No.87/2019 against the appellant-applicant
Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/o Shri Ramsingh, shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be
released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum
[2024:RJ-JP:3595] (4 of 4) [SOSA-203/2023]
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 26.02.2024 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/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,
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-applicant(s) was/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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
45-SURAJ KUMAR
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
