Rajasthan High Court
Lakhan Singh S/O Bahadur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37648) on 5 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:37648]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1437/2023
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2724/2023
Lakhan Singh S/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Aasalur Police Station Ghatoli, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan)
(Presently Confined In District Jail Jhalawar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
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 & 376(2)(N) of IPC
and Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence
Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned
Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act &
Child Right Protection Commission Act, No.1, Jhalawar (Raj.) in
Sessions Case No.91/2021 (CIS No.91/2021) and has been
sentenced to maximum punishment of twenty years.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that
appellant-applicant has wrongly been convicted by the learned
[2024:RJ-JP:37648] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1437/2023]
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 conclusive evidence available on
record about the age of the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that
according to the medical evidence, prosecutrix was found aged
about 17 years at the time of alleged incident. Counsel submits
that prosecutrix was in affair with the appellant who is aged about
21 years and left her parental home on her own will. Counsel
submits that prosecutrix travelled with the appellant on
motorcycle as well as in public conveyance and during this period
she did not make any complaint. Counsel submits that there is no
medical corroborations of the allegations of the prosecutrix as
prosecutrix refused to get medically examined herself. Cousnel
submits that there is no evidence available on record suggesting
that at any point of time, actual age was disclosed by the
prosecutrix to the appellant. Counsel further submits that
appellant has suffered incarceration of Three years Four months
and Ten days till date and there is no immediate prospect of this
appeal being heard and disposed of in near future.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the appellant. He submits that consent of the
prosecutrix was immaterial as at the time of commission of
offence, she was below the age of 18 years. He further submits
that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about
this application for suspension of execution of sentence, but
despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the
complainant.
[2024:RJ-JP:37648] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1437/2023]
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel 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 at the verge of majority and the appellant was
aged about 21 years; appellant has suffered incarceration of Three
years Four months and Ten days till date 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, No.1, Jhalawar (Raj.) vide judgment dated
17.08.2023 in Sessions Case No.91/2021 (CIS No.91/2021)
against the appellant-applicant Lakhan Singh S/o Bahadur
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:-
[2024:RJ-JP:37648] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1437/2023]
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 /63
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
