Rajasthan High Court
Veekesh Kumar Son Of Shri Munna Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37130) on 4 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:37130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1/2022
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1/2022
Veekesh Kumar Son Of Shri Munna Lal, Resident Of Village
Kheda Sarani Police Station Sadar, Dholpur District Dholpur At
Present In Central Jail, Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harender Singh
Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
Mr. Mohit Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
04/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of
execution of sentence. Perused the material available on record.
2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offence
under Section 376 of IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act vide
judgment dated 04.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act & Commission for
Protection of Children Act, Dholpur (Raj.) in Sessions Case
No.172/2018 (CIS No.172/2018) and has been sentenced to
maximum punishment of twenty years.
[2024:RJ-JP:37130] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1/2022]
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 it
is a case of false implication as no such offence has alleged by the
prosecutrix. He submits that learned trial court has awarded
conviction solely on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix. He
submits that there is no medical corroboration of the allegations of
the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that learned trial court has
relied upon the FSL report wherein human semen was detected in
the undergarment of the accused as well as the prosecutrix but for
matching their DNA, there is no report is available on record. He
pointed out that undergarment of the prosecutrix was recovered
on 07.08.2018 and undergarment of applicant-appellant was
recovered on 19.08.2018 but same was deposited in the malkhana
on 23.08.2018 after a great delay for which no explanation is
available on record and there is no evidence suggesting the fact
that who was in possession of these articles during this period.
Counsel submits that these articles were deposited in the FSL on
31.08.2018 that is after eight days from deposition in malkhana.
He submits that specific questions were put before the
Investigating Officer and he clearly stated that he did not find any
sign/marks at the place of incident. He also mentioned that he did
not find any tyre or foot marks or any other type of sign at the
place of incident. Counsel submits that medical expert has also
clearly stated in his testimony that he did not find any sign of
sexual violence/assault on the body of the prosecutrix, who was
[2024:RJ-JP:37130] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1/2022]
examined on very next day of the commission of the alleged
offence. It is further submitted that during trial, applicant was on
bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. He submits that the
as per custody certificate, appellant-applicant has suffered a
period of incarceration of about 5 years & four months. He argues
that there is no immediate prospect of early hearing and disposal
of the appeal.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel
for complainant vehemently opposes submissions made by the
learned counsel for appellant. They submit that the bail granted by
the learned trial court to the accused-applicant was cancelled by
this court. They submit that human semen was detected on the
undergarment of the accused-applicant as well as the prosecutrix.
They also submit that at the time of commission of the alleged
offence, prosecutrix was 12 years old.
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances
as available on the record, especially the fact that prosecutrix was
examined on very next day of the commission of alleged offence
wherein no sign of sexual violence was found on her body and also
considering the fact that articles i.e., undergarment of applicant-
appellant as well as proseuctrix was deposited in malkhana after a
great delay, for which no explanation is available on record and
same was sent to the FSL after a delay of eight days so also the
admission made by the Investigating Officer in his court statement
that he did not find any sign/marks at the place of incident;
appellant-applicant has suffered a period of incarceration of about
[2024:RJ-JP:37130] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1/2022]
5 years & four months, but without making any comment on the
merits/demerits of the case, 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 accused
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 & Commission for Protection of
Children Act, Dholpur (Raj. vide judgment dated 04.12.2021 in
Sessions Case No.172/2018 (CIS No.172/2018) against the
appellant-applicant Veekesh Kumar Son Of Shri Munna Lal
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal
and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes 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.
[2024:RJ-JP:37130] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1/2022]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
he 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
GAUTAM JAIN /81
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
