Rajasthan High Court
Mahaveer Khatik S/O Shri Sayar Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:39110) on 17 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:39110]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 558/2023
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.629/2023
Mahaveer Khatik S/o Shri Sayar Khatik, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Bavdi, Police Station Todaraisingh District Tonk (Presently
Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
17/09/2024
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
offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 376(3), 376(2)(N) of
IPC & Sections 3/4, 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act vide judgment dated
18.08.2022 passed by learned Special Court, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act & Commission for Protection of
Children Act, No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (Raj.) in Sessions Case
No.21/2019 and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of
twenty years.
[2024:RJ-JP:39110] (2 of 3) [SOSA-558/2023]
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
there is no medical corroboration of the allegation levelled by the
prosecutrix. He submits that no evidence is available on record
suggesting the fact that at the time of alleged incident, victim was
below 18 years. It is further submitted that as per custody
certificate, appellant-applicant has already suffered an
incarceration of about six years. He argues that there is no
immediate prospect of early hearing and disposal of the appeal.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes submissions made by the
learned counsel for appellant. He submits that at the time of the
alleged incident victim was aged about 14 years 2 months and she
has levelled specific allegation against the appellant of commission
of rape. He submits that it appears from the testimony of victim
that she was injected and thereafter rape was committed upon
her. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in testimony
of the victim and in rape cases, sole testimony of the victim is
enough to record conviction.
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 there is specific
allegation against the appellant of commission of rape with the
victim who was aged about 14 years 2 months & in support
thereof, transfer certificate is available on record, I do not find it a
fit case for suspending the execution of sentence. In my
[2024:RJ-JP:39110] (3 of 3) [SOSA-558/2023]
considered opinion, mere incarceration period already served by a
convict cannot be a sole ground to grant benefit of suspension of
execution of sentence to the appellant especially, when victim was
aged about 14 years 2 months & she categorically levelled
allegations against the appellant of commission of rape. Thus, I
am not inclined to accept the instant application for SOS.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is
dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
