Rajasthan High Court
Rohit S/O Shri Dharmdas vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37261) on 4 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:37261]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 171/2024
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.201/2024
Teekam Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident
Of Gudha Salt, Ps- Nawa, District Nagour (Presently Confined In
Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Bajarang Singh S/o Shankar Singh, Residence Of
Ralawata, Ps-Renewal District Jaipur Rural
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3/2024
Rohit S/o Shri Dharmdas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gudha Salt,
Police Station Navan, District Nagaur. (Presently Confined In
Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
04/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and
learned State counsel on the applications for suspension of
execution of sentence.
2. The applicantss-appellant herein have 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 13.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
[2024:RJ-JP:37261] (2 of 4) [SOSA-171/2024]
Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Jaipur in
Sessions Case No. 49/2020 and has been sentenced to maximum
punishment of fourteen years.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submit that
learned trial Court has committed error in convicting the
appellants-applicants. Counsel submit that learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in correct
perspective. Counsel submit that prosecutrix has clearly admitted
in her testimony that her date of birth is 17.04.2002 and as such
at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was major. Counsel
submit that Principal who was produced by the prosecution to
prove the age of the prosecutrix, has also admitted the fact that
date of birth of prosecutrix in her mark-sheet of class 10 th is
17.04.2002. Counsel submit that it appears from the First
Information Report that a letter was also left by the prosecutrix
while leaving the parental home wherein it was mentioned by her
that she is leaving the home on her own. Counsel submit that at
initial stage, she clearly stated before the investigating agency in
her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC that she developed
physical relation with the appellants on her own. Counsel submit
that during the course of trial, appellants-applicants were on bail
and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Counsel submit that
there is no immediate prospect of these appeals being heard and
disposed of in near future.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the appellants. He submits that the date of the birth of
[2024:RJ-JP:37261] (3 of 4) [SOSA-171/2024]
the prosecutrix is 17.04.2004 but fairly conceded that the
investigating agency has not recovered or seized the 10 th class
mark-sheet of the prosecutrix. He submits that despite
information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of
victim/complainant.
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the counsel for the appellants as well as learned State Counsel
and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on
the record especially the fact that admittedly, prosecutrix's date of
birth is 17.04.2002; prosecutrix left her parental home on her own
leaving a written note that she is leaving the house on her own
and the fact that during the course of trial, appellants were on
bail; there is no immediate prospect of these appeals being heard
and disposed of in near future, this Court is of the opinion that the
appellants have available to them strong grounds to assail the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Thus, it is a fit
case for suspending the sentences awarded to the applicants-
appellants during pendency of the instant appeal.
6. Accordingly, the applications 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, Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, Jaipur vide judgment dated
13.12.2023 in Sessions Case No. 49/2020 against the appellants-
applicants Teekam Singh S/o Jethu Singh and Rohit S/o Shri
Dharmdas shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they
execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
[2024:RJ-JP:37261] (4 of 4) [SOSA-171/2024]
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for their appearance in this court on 09.10.2024 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicants changes the place of
residence, they will give in writing their 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 accuseds-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accuseds-applicants 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 applicants do 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 /98-99
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
