Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23998) on 15 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:23998]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 745/2025
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2040/2024
Ratan Lal S/o Shri Bda @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Kharliya Fla, Piplota, Police Station Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.)
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharavan Singh Rathore, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
19.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act
Cases No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.73/2022 whereby he
was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
suffer ten years' RI along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default
to further undergo one month's additional sentence and for lesser
offence under Section 341 of the IPC.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
[2025:RJ-JD:23998] (2 of 4) [SOSA-745/2025]
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The
appellant-applicant is in jail since 21.08.2022 and hearing of the
appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not been
satisfactorily explained, as strongly argued by learned counsel for
the appellant and this aspect requires due consideration. The
submission that the manner in which the incident allegedly
occurred does not inspire confidence, and that the narrative
presented in the FIR appears unconvincing, is another point to be
adjudicated by this Court, being the First Appellate Court.
5.1. Although several villagers were stated to be present along
with the prosecutrix in the fete and at the time she was returning
home, no one has been produced as a witness to support her
allegations. She claims to have been dragged for 10-12 feet, yet
neither were her clothes found torn, nor did she suffer any
abrasions. The alleged interpolation in Exhibit P-1 and the
suggestion of a prior relationship with the appellant also warrant
re-examination.
5.2. Furthermore, the age of the prosecutrix as recorded in
Exhibits P-3 and P-7 must be assessed in light of the statement
made by the victim's mother, PW-1 Kemi Bai. The appeal was filed
[2025:RJ-JD:23998] (3 of 4) [SOSA-745/2025]
long ago, and subsequent after attaining the age of majority, the
victim and the appellant have entered into marriage. The marriage
was solemnized according to customary rituals, with the consent
of both families. The affidavit annexed with the application,
verifying the fact of her marriage to the appellant, along with her
declaration of having fallen in love with him and he being her
husband, her prayer for his release, may be considered at this
stage, particularly since the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the
near future, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-
applicant named above 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 19.06.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23998] (4 of 4) [SOSA-745/2025]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court.
8. 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
133-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
