Rajasthan High Court
Jeetmal @ Jeetu Son Of Shri Ramlal Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:42159) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:42159]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 496/2022
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.710/2022
Jeetmal @ Jeetu Son Of Shri Ramlal Bheel, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Village Pamakhedi, Police Station Suket, District Kota
(Rajasthan) (Accused Appellant Is Confined In District Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
07/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
learned State counsel on the application for suspension of
execution of sentence.
2. The applicant-appellant herein h as been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 454, 506, 376(2)(n) & 376(3)
of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 11.03.2022 passed by
learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, No.1, Kota
(Raj.) in Sessions Case No.70/2019 and has been sentenced to
maximum punishment of twenty years.
[2024:RJ-JP:42159] (2 of 4) [SOSA-496/2022]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that
appellant-applicant has wrongly been convicted by the learned
trial Court. Counsel submits that learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence available on record in correct perspective.
Counsel submits that there is no medical corroboration of the
allegations levelled by the victim as no sign of sexual assault was
found on the person of the victim at the time of medical
examination and her hymen was found intact. It is submitted that
mere presence of male DNA of the appellant on the
undergarments of the victim does not have any significance in this
case as samples were taken on 27.12.2018 and same were
deposited in the FSL on 05.02.2019 i.e., after delay of more than
35 days for which no proper explanation is available on record.
Counsel submits that at the time of the alleged incident, appellant
was aged about 22 years. Counsel further submits that appellant
has suffered incarceration of about Six years including remission
and there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and
disposed of in near future.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the appellant. He further submits that
victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about
hearing of this application for suspension of execution of sentence.
5. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf
of the complainant.
6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel and having
regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record
[2024:RJ-JP:42159] (3 of 4) [SOSA-496/2022]
and especially the fact that no sign of sexual assault was found on
the person of the victim at the time of medical examination and so
also considering the fact that appellant has suffered incarceration
of about Six years till date and final adjudication of the present
appeal is likely to take time, this Court is of the opinion that the
appellant has available to him strong grounds to assail the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Thus, it is a fit
case for suspending the sentences awarded to the applicant-
appellant during pendency of the instant appeal.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 of Cr.PC is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act & Commission for Protection of
Child Rights Act, No.1, Kota (Raj.) vide judgment dated
11.03.2022 in Sessions Case No.70/2019 against the appellant-
applicant Jeetmal @ Jeetu Son Of Shri Ramlal Bheel shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he
shall be released on bail, provided he execute 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 his appearance in this
court on 07.11.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his changed
[2024:RJ-JP:42159] (4 of 4) [SOSA-496/2022]
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.
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 original 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 applicant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
