Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dileep Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47049) on 1 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:47049]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1073/2025
Dileep Kumar S/o Late Kaluram, Aged About 22 Years, Resident
Of Bhatwara Police Station Nithauwa, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Kanti Lal S/o Nanji Katara, Resident Of Thakarda,
Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Gopal Singh for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
01/11/2025
In S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No.988/2025:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant refers to the
statement of the prosecutrix PW-9, wherein she had clearly stated
that she went with the appellant-applicant as per her own volition
and she stayed with the appellant-applicant as his wife and does
not want to prosecute the case against the appellant-applicant.
Prosecutrix has further stated in her statement that both have
been blessed with the child and has specifically denied the factum
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 06:10:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47049] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1073/2025]
of any forceful sexual assault being committed upon her by the
appellant-applicant. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded
under Section 164 (Ex.P33) too, had denied the factum of any
sexual assault being committed upon her or any forceful act on
the part of the appellant-applicant. He further submits that father
and other relatives of the prosecutrix have also not supported the
version of the prosecution and the prosecutrix has even denied
handing over her clothes to the police for the purpose of FSL,
whereas the learned trial Court has convicted the present
appellant-applicant only on the ground that in the FSL report, the
semen was found upon the clothes worn by the prosecutrix. He
further submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the
FIR and even the medical evidence has not supported the stand of
the prosecution. In these circumstances, he prays that the
sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant may be suspended
and he may be released on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and submits that consent would be
totally irrelevant as the victim was 17 years of age at the time of
the incident. Learned counsel for the complainant, Gopal Singh,
however, asserts that the victim has not supported the stand of
the prosecution and the victim is staying with the appellant-
applicant as his wife and both have been blessed with the child,
therefore, he submits that he does not want to oppose the
application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant-
applicant.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 06:10:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47049] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1073/2025]
the case as well as the record of the case, including the facts that
the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the
prosecution, she has even stated that she has not handed over
the clothes to the police for the FSL of the same, she has asserted
that she is staying with the appellant-applicant as the wife of the
appellant-applicant and both have been blessed with a child, she
stated that she does not want to prosecute the present case, the
father and other relatives of the prosecutrix have also not
supported the version of the prosecution and chances of hearing
of appeal in near future being bleak, this Court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the
accused appellant-applicant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Judge, Protection of Children from
Offences Act, 2012 and Child Rights Protection Commission Act,
2005, Dungarpur, Rajasthan, vide judgment dated 14.11.2024 in
Session Case No.69/2022 against the appellant-applicant
Dileep Kumar S/o Late Kaluram 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.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 01.12.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 06:10:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47049] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1073/2025]
his/her/their 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.
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
288-Love/-
(Uploaded on 01/11/2025 at 06:10:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
