Rajasthan High Court
Ajay@Monu S/O Dayaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:42160) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:42160]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 414/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.382/2023
Ajay@monu S/o Dayaram, R/o Sherpur P.s. Kotkasim District
Alwar (Raj) (Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, 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 has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 vide
judgment dated 19.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 &
Commission of Protection of Child Right Act,2005, No.4, Alwar
(Raj.) in Sessions Case No.108/2021 (108/2021) and has been
sentenced to maximum punishment of ten years.
[2024:RJ-JP:42160] (2 of 4) [SOSA-414/2023]
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 appellant-applicant has wrongly been
implicated in this case. Counsel submits that at the time of alleged
incident, victim was at the verge of majority as her date of birth is
31.08.2003. Counsel submits that there is no medical
corroboration of the allegations levelled by the victim as no sign of
recent sexual intercourse was found at the time of medical
examination of the victim and FSL as well as DNA report does not
support the prosecution case. Counsel submits that during the
course of trial, appellant was on bail and he did not misuse the
liberty of bail. Counsel submits that out of maximum sentence of
10 years appellant has suffered incarceration of about One year
and Eight months including remission. Counsel submits that
looking to the large pendency of appeals, 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 submits that victim/complainant of
this case has duly been informed about hearing of this application
for suspension of execution of sentence. He submits that it
appears from the record that power was also filed on behalf of the
victim but her counsel informed on last date of hearing that
victim/complainant has taken back the file from him and in the
interest of justice, matter was adjourned.
[2024:RJ-JP:42160] (3 of 4) [SOSA-414/2023]
5. It appears that no new counsel has been engaged by the
victim/complainant as no one has put in appearance on her behalf.
6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and having
regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record
and especially the fact that at the time of alleged incident, victim
was at the verge of majority and so also considering the fact that
during trial appellant was on bail and he has suffered incarceration
of about One year and Eight months and there is no immediate
prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of near future,
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 of Protection of
Child Right Act, No.4, Alwar (Raj.) vide judgment dated
19.01.2023 in Sessions Case No.108/2021 (CIS No.108/2021)
against the appellant-applicant Ajay @ Monu S/o Dayaram 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
[2024:RJ-JP:42160] (4 of 4) [SOSA-414/2023]
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
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 /102
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
