Rajasthan High Court
Anil Son Of Kedar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37525) on 5 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:37525]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 743/2023
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1094/2023
Anil Son Of Kedar Singh, Residence Of Chunna Ka Pura, Police
Station Kolari, District Dholpur (Raj) (Accused Petitioner Is
Presently Confined At Dist. Jail Dholpur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
For complainant(s) : Mr. Kartik Soti for
Mr. Anshul Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
05/09/2024
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 Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and Section
4(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 vide
judgment dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act & Child Right
Protection Commission Act, Dholpur (Raj.) in Sessions Case
No.14/2020 (CIS No.14/2020) and has been sentenced to
maximum punishment of ten years.
[2024:RJ-JP:37525] (2 of 4) [SOSA-743/2023]
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 at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix
was aged about 17 years and 10 months and appellant was aged
about 19 years. Counsel submits that there is no medical
corroboration of the allegations of the prosecutrix and mere
presence of semen on the undergarments of prosecutrix as well as
appellant cannot be the basis of the conviction. He further submits
that as per the FSL report, semen could not be detected in vaginal
smear slide and vaginal smear swab. Counsel further submits that
during trial, appellant-applicant was on bail and he did not misuse
the liberty of bail. Counsel submits that till date appellant has
suffered incarceration of about two years including remission and
there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and
disposed of in near future.
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant
oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. They
submit that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18
years and therefore, consent of the prosecutrix was immaterial.
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel as well as
counsel for the complainant and having regard to the facts and
circumstances as available on the record and especially the fact
that at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was aged about 17
years and 10 months and appellant was aged about 19 years and
[2024:RJ-JP:37525] (3 of 4) [SOSA-743/2023]
in such circumstances matter requires to be examined from
different angle; appellant was on bail during trial and till date he
suffered incarceration of about two year and final adjudication of
the present appeal is likely to take time, 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 & Child Right Protection
Commission Act, Dholpur (Raj.) vide judgment dated 10.04.2023
in Sessions Case No.14/2020 (CIS No.14/2020) against the
appellant-applicant Anil S/o Kedar Singh 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
court on 10.10.2024 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:37525] (4 of 4) [SOSA-743/2023]
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 /58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
