Rajasthan High Court
Ajay Son Of Shri Harisingh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3639) on 22 January, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:3639]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 284/2023
Ajay Son of Shri Harisingh, resident of tenant in House of Bhuri
Singh Jatav Madina Colony Dholpur, Police Station Kotwali,
District Dholpur (Raj) (At present confined in District Jail,
Dholpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Udit Sapra
Mr. Dushyant Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yaswant Kankhadia, PP
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
22/01/2024
1. This S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application
(Appeal) is preferred against the judgments dated 12.08.2022 and
16.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Children Rights
Protection Commission Act, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.20/2020
whereby accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under
Section 450, 376B, 354 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO
Act sentenced as under: -
Section 3 read with Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act-
Twenty years' rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of which,
further ordered to undergo six months' rigorous
imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JP:3639] (2 of 3) [SOSA-284/2023]
Section 450 IPC -
Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of which,
further ordered to undergo one month rigorous
imprisonment.
Section 506 IPC -
Two years simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of which,
further ordered to undergo fifteen days' simple
imprisonment.
The accused was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- out of
Rs.65,000/- of fine imposed, as compensation to the prosecutrix.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is
delayed by six days. The accused has been falsely implicated in
the matter. The evidence of victim PW-1 is not reliable and not
corroborated by medical as well as FSL & DNA report. The
petitioner is behind the bar since 20.02.2020. Decision of the
appeal may take considerable time, therefore this application for
suspension of sentence may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of victim and learned
Public Prosecutor vehemently oppose the application. It is argued
that prosecutrix in her statement has clearly stated that the
accused has committed rape with her. Delay of six days in filing
the FIR is clearly explained and non corroboration from medical
evidence, FSL report etc. is not essential. Prosecutrix was 16
years of age whereas the accused is 23 years of age on the date
of incident.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public
Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.
[2024:RJ-JP:3639] (3 of 3) [SOSA-284/2023]
5. The learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence
convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO
Act and under Sections 450 & 506 IPC. Learned trial Court also
recorded the fact that victim was found below 16 years of age and
in her statement she has clearly stated that accused has
committed rape with her. At this juncture it is not desirable to
comment anything upon the merits of the case. Considering the
testimony of victim PW-1 and having considered the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to suspend
the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.
6. Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence is
rejected.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
50-/DHARMENDRA RAKHECHA
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
