Rajasthan High Court
Pintu @ Karan Son Of Ghanshyam @ Habu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37010) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:37010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 852/2024
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397/2024
Pintu @ Karan Son Of Ghanshyam @ Habu, Resident Of
Mamchari Police Station Mamchari District Karauli (Raj)
(Presently Confined In District Jail, Karauli)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Jamnalal Son Of Shri Hargyan, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of Mamchari Police Station Mamchari District
Karauli (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
03/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned
State counsel and counsel for the complainant on the application
for suspension of execution of sentence.
2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 3/4(2) of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 07.02.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Child Rights
Protection Act, 2005, Karauli (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.54/2023
(CIS No.54/2023) and has been sentenced to maximum
punishment of twenty years.
[2024:RJ-JP:37010] (2 of 4) [SOSA-852/2024]
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 evidence available on record
against the appellant-applicant. Counsel submits that in the facts
and circumstances available on record, prosecutrix cannot be
considered as reliable witness. Counsel submits that according to
the medical report and testimony of medical expert, no sign of use
of force was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Counsel
submits that learned trial Court has recorded the conviction in this
matter in a very hasty manner without receiving the FSL report as
well DNA report. Counsel submits that according to the physical
features of the prosecutrix, she was a mature girl and it has been
mentioned in the medical report that her height was 158 cm and
her weight was 46 kg and it has also been observed by the
medical expert that there was 28 teeths of the prosecutrix.
Counsel submits that story of the prosecution cannot be believed
because it has been admitted by the father of the prosecutrix that
there is four washrooms in their house, so there was no occasion
to go outside the house for toilet. Counsel submits that appellant-
applicant and prosecutrix are neighbour and on account of dispute
with regard to the boundary wall, this false case has been
registered against the appellant. Counsel submits that maximum
sentence imposed by learned trial Court is twenty years and there
is no immediate prospect of being heard and disposal of this
appeal in near future.
[2024:RJ-JP:37010] (3 of 4) [SOSA-852/2024]
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant
vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the
appellant. They submit that at the time of commission of the
offence, age of the prosecutrix was about 15 years.
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and counsel for
the complainant and having regard to the facts and circumstances
as available on the record and especially the fact that no sign of
sexual assault was found by the medical expert on the body of the
prosecutrix; no FSL as well as DNA report is available on record;
despite the availability of washrooms in the house, it is little
difficult to digest that prosecutrix will go out for toilet; there is no
prospect of being heard and disposal of this appeal in 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.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Child
Rights Protection Act, 2005, Karauli (Raj.) vide judgment dated
07.02.2024 in Sessions Case No.54/2023 (CIS No.54/2023)
against the appellant-applicant Pintu @ Karan Son Of
Ghanshyam @ Habu shall remain suspended till final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he
[2024:RJ-JP:37010] (4 of 4) [SOSA-852/2024]
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 08.10.2024 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.
7. 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 /74
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
