Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Bairwa @ Lala S/O Shri Kaduram ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:42772) on 9 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:42772]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 114/2024
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.141/2024
Dinesh Bairwa @ Lala S/o Shri Kaduram Bairwa, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village Nayapura Post Maholi Police Station Karauli
Sadar District Karauli Presently C/o Behind Of Icici Bank, 07
Number Choraha Jagatpura Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Presently
Confined In Central Jail At Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brij Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
09/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of
sentence.
2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for
offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376(2)(N) of IPC and Sections
3/4, 5/6 & 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned
Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005,
No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.01/2023
[2024:RJ-JP:42772] (2 of 3) [SOSA-114/2024]
(CIS No.03/2023) and has been sentenced to maximum
punishment of 20 years.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial
court has erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant as
mentioned above. Learned trial court has not appreciated the
evidence in right and correct perspective. Counsel submits that
allegation of abduction of the victim by three persons from thickly
populated area cannot be believed. Counsel submits that at the
time of alleged incident, the victim was of 16 years of age and
appellant was also aged about 21 years. Counsel submits that
victim left her parental home on her free will with the appellant.
Appellant is in custody for last 2 years and 2 months and there is
no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of
in near future.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for applicant-appellant. He submits that there is
an allegation against the appellant of abduction and commission of
forceful repeated intercourse upon the victim by confining her in a
secret place. He further submits that victim/complainant has
already been informed about hearing of this application for
suspension of execution of sentence as well as appeal but, despite
information no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim
to oppose this application.
5. Looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations
levelled against the appellant by the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her court
testimony and having regard to the overall facts and
[2024:RJ-JP:42772] (3 of 3) [SOSA-114/2024]
circumstances of the present case as also the fact that neither any
suggestion was given to the victim during the course of
cross-examination that she was a consenting party nor any other
evidence is available on record indicating or suggesting that victim
was consenting party and she left her home on her own free will, I
am not inclined to suspend the execution of sentence awarded by
the learned trial Court.
6. Accordingly, instant application for suspension of execution
of sentence is dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /203
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
