Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravi Alias Ravneet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2024

Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni

[2024:RJ-JD:23739-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 394/2024
                                           IN
                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No.85/2024

Resham Singh @ Reshu S/o Shri Pahalwan Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Of Ward No 23 Anoopgarh (Raj) (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail Sriganganagar)
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan, though PP
                                                                    ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 479/2024
                                           IN
                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No.99/2024
1. Ravi @ Ravneet Singh S/o Rupendra Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Anupgarh, Dist. Anupgarh. Raj. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar).
2. Rajdeep Singh @ Raju S/o Rupendra Singh, Aged about 34
years, R/o ward No.23, Anupgarh, Distt. Anupgarh. (At present
lodged in Central Jail Sriganganagar).
3. Banti @ Vanit Chandel S/o Subhash Chandra, Aged about 33
years, R/o Kalar, Tehsil Ghumarmi, Distt. Vilashpur, Himachal
Pradesh, At present R/o Ward No.23, Anupgarh, Distt. Anupgarh.
(At present lodged in Central Jail Sriganganagar).
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
 State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. D.S. Thind
                                   Mr. Amit Kumar
                                   Mr. B.S. Sandhu
                                   Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP




                        (Downloaded on 27/05/2024 at 08:56:54 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:23739-DB]                   (2 of 5)                     [SOSA-394/2024]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

24/05/2024

1. These applications for suspension of sentence have been

filed by the appellants, who have been convicted by the trial Court

for the offences under Sections 376-D of IPC and have been

awarded sentences as under:-

Resham Singh @ Reshu (SoS No.394/2024) Offence Sentence Fine 376-D IPC L.I. Rs.50,000/- in default of payment to 3 years' R.I.

Ravi @ Ravneet Singh (SoS No.479/2024) Offence Sentence Fine 376-D IPC L.I. Rs.50,000/- in default of payment to 3 years' R.I.

Rajdeep Singh @ Raju (SoS No.479/2024) Offence Sentence Fine 376-D IPC L.I. Rs.50,000/- in default of payment to 3 years' R.I.

Banti @ Vanit Chandel (SoS No.479/2024) Offence Sentence Fine 376-D IPC L.I. Rs.50,000/- in default of payment to 3 years' R.I.

2. By the order of even date, the application being D.B.

Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No.570/2024 in respect of co-accused Rajendra Singh @ Golu has

been allowed by this Court.

3. So far as appellants in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of

Sentence Application (Appeal) No.394/2024 and D.B. Criminal

[2024:RJ-JD:23739-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-394/2024]

Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.479/2024

are concerned, considering that even as per testimony of the

victim, she had love affairs with accused Rajendra Singh @ Golu.

The story as projected by her that in the wee hours of night, four

persons including the present appellants came on terrace and

after the incident of the girl's uncle falling from the stair, they

again committed rape and took the girl to a place other than her

residence to commit gang rape, does not inspire confidence.

4. While allowing the suspension of sentence in the case of co-

accused Rajendra Singh @ Golu we have observed thus:-

"2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the story projected by the victim does not appear to be reliable and appeal to prudence. Inviting Court's attention towards the backdrop facts, learned counsel highlighted that as per the testimony of victim, immediately after the sexual assault by the appellant and his friends, her uncle (Tau) had come on the terrace; whereafter he fell down or he was pushed down and it was after the uncle fell down, she was taken to a third place and gang raped, is totally false and unbelievable.

3. He submitted that after investigation the police did not find any offence under Section 302 made out against the present appellant or against any of the co-accused persons and even her allegation that her uncle was pushed down has not been found correct. He argued that the story as projected and deposed by the prosecutrix in her Court statement is unbelievable and the accusation of gang rape against the present appellant is absolutely baseless, particularly when the uncle and his wife (Tau and Tai) were living in the same house.

4. Learned counsel contended that it cannot be believed that the victim was firstly gang raped by five persons in her house and despite her uncle (Tau) having fallen from the stairs and got injured, she was taken to a place other than her residence and raped by five persons. He invited Court's attention towards the discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix vis-a-vis other witnesses.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

6. Having sifted through the record, more particularly statements of witnesses, we feel that

[2024:RJ-JD:23739-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-394/2024]

the testimony of the prosecutrix prima-facie does not inspire confidence; committing sexual assault by five persons on two occasions within one night at 11 PM in a place which houses two of her relatives and then her abduction from the house followed by another sexual encounter is easy to allege but difficult to believe. Her other story that she was then taken to tank and hanged is preposterous on the one hand and has been completely negated by the other witnesses.

7. The alleged incident took place on 11.05.2015 and the written report came to be lodged by father of the prosecutrix on 29.05.2015. There is no justification or explanation of the delay in reporting the incident to the police.

8. The latter part of the story in which the prosecutrix claims that the appellant and accused persons took her to the tank and hanged her, has turned out to be a complete lie. Given that the water tank is just near the police station and that other witness including her mother Jasveer Kaur (PW-3) has completely belied the story and stated that she alone went towards the water tank, we are of the view that her testimony cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth."

5. In view of what we have noticed hereinabove and

considering that the appellants were on bail during trial, we

consider it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence

awarded to the applicants.

6. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence

preferred on behalf of appellants are allowed and it is ordered that

the substantive sentence passed by the learned Special Judge,

Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions

Case No.88/2020 (71/15) vide judgment dated 26.02.2024

against the appellants - (1) Resham Singh @ Reshu S/o Shri

Pahalwan Singh (Sos No.-394/2024), (2) Ravi @ Ravneet Singh

S/o Rupendra Singh, (3) Rajdeep Singh @ Raju S/o Rupendra

Singh, (4) Banti @ Vanit Chandel S/o Subhash Chandra (SoS

No.479/2024), shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid criminal appeal provided each of them executes a

[2024:RJ-JD:23739-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-394/2024]

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith two sureties

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned

trial court for their appearance in this Court on 01.07.2024 and

subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions: -

1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court.