Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Singh @ Golu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2024
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 570/2024
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.84/2024
Rajendra Singh @ Golu S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Chak 15 A Police Station Anoopgarh. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind
Mr. Amit Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
24/05/2024
1. This application for suspension of sentence has been filed by
the appellant, who has been convicted by the trial Court for the
offences under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376-D of IPC and has been
awarded sentence as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine
376(2)(n) IPC 10 years' R.I. Rs.30,000/- in
default of payment
to 2 years' R.I.
376-D IPC L.I. until death Rs.50,000/- in
default of payment
to 3 years' R.I.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the story
projected by the victim does not appear to be reliable and appeal
[2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024]
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 the testimony of the
prosecutrix prima-facie does not inspire confidence; committing
[2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024]
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.
9. That apart, the appellant has remained incarcerated for more
than eight years. Hence, we consider it appropriate to suspend the
substantive sentence awarded to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence
preferred on behalf of appellant is 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 appellant - Rajendra Singh @ Golu S/o Shri Nakshatra
Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid
[2024:RJ-JD:23738-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-570/2024]
criminal appeal provided he executes a 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 his
appearance in this Court on 01.07.2024 and subsequently before
the trial court on the following conditions: -
1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of
January every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will
give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High
Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly if sureties change their addresses, they will give in
writing their changed address to the trial court
8. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to the Session Case in which the
accused applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial Court, the learned
trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
30-Suraj/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
