Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karan Soni @ Divanshu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24459) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:24459]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1568/2024
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1612/2024
Karan Soni @ Divanshu S/o Shri Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Patel Nagar, Tarachand Vatika, Near Mahila Park, P.s.
Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
2. Kewal Kumar S/o Narayan Das, R/o 49 Napal Colony,
Street Of Yog Divya Mandir, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Thind
Ms. Sonika
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
27.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and
Child Right Protection Commission Act No.1, District Sri
Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.13/2023 whereby he was
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 20
years under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC and 3/4(2), 5(L)/6
of POCSO Act and lesser punishment for the other.
[2025:RJ-JD:24459] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1568/2024]
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
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court.
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. None present for the victim or her guardian despite supply of
information to them.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record particularly the statement of victim
PW-1 "A" and her uncle PW-3 Yogesh Bansal so also gone through
niceties of the case.
5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant, a serious doubt has entered in the story narrated by the
victim in her statement before the trial court and during
investigation. If due regard is given to the submissions made at
bar, it would come to fore that the manner in which incident
alleged to have taken place does not inspire confidence. On
several occasions the victim met with the appellant in a
clandestine manner. The core question whether she was subjected
to rape or not has also taken a jolt when gone through the
statement of PW-3 Yogesh Bansal in his cross-examination. PW-3
is a practicing lawyer and happens to be uncle of the victim. When
[2025:RJ-JD:24459] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1568/2024]
he was subjected to cross-examination, he made several
admissions which are profoundly giving corroboration and strength
to the plea taken by the defence. The admission that no complaint
of outraging the modesty and subjecting the victim to rape was
given to the police and his further admission that a fake story of
rape was concocted on a subsequent day after apprehension of
appellant in public view with the victim surreptitiously in the street
of the city further puts a serious dent in the story of the
prosecution. After minutely gone through the statement of
prosecution witlessness, this Court feels that a critical appreciation
of evidence has to be made by this Court again being the first
appellate court so as to examine the very sustainability of
judgment of conviction and finding of guilt reached by learned trial
court. As on date, the observations made hereinabove shall be
taken tentatively and the same are not final and this Court is
desisting from giving any final opinion on the credibility of the
statement of prosecution witnesses since doing so may influence
the merits of the appeal which is not being heard at this stage
owing to the voluminous pendency and paucity of time, but at the
same time this Court cannot resist itself to extend the benefit of
bail to the appellant who is a 19 year old boy. The evidence with
regard to age of the victim also require meticulous examination so
as to ascertain or determine the exact date of birth and age of the
victim. The documents produced by the prosecution during trial
relates to her academic record maintained by the Board of
Secondary Education. But at the same time, admission of girl in
cross-examination to the effect that in initial days she got
admission in Brightland Convent School and the academic
[2025:RJ-JD:24459] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1568/2024]
document of that school have not been produced in the trial and
for which there is a serious assertion of the defence that the same
have deliberately been withheld because the entries there were
different to what have been mentioned in the secondary school
certificate. Be that as it may, at this stage, no finding is being
given to this aspect also. Looking to the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, the fact that there is no likelihood of
hearing of the appeal in near future and the fact that the appellant
is a boy of 19 years and is a student and there are no compelling
circumstances to detain him until disposal of the appeal and so
also that hearing of the appeal would likely to take a long time,
this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the
sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.
6. 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 20.06.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24459] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1568/2024]
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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
68-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
