Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 November, 2025
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2025:RJ-JD:50926-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc IIIrd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.
1740/2025
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.70/2021
Naresh S/o Shri Amra, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gandhwa Fala
Road, P.s. Dhambola, Tehsil And Dist. Dungerpur. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Dungarpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Addl.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
25/11/2025
1. This third suspension of sentence application has been filed
by the accused-applicant along with the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the
accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 366 & 344 of IPC and Section 376(3) of IPC read with
5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-
applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he is in
custody for last more than six years. He further submits that the
sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused-
applicant for the offence under Section 376 (3) of IPC read with
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. He further submits that the age
of the victim is doubtful and the hearing of appeal may take a long
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:37:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50926-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1740/2025]
time and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant
may be suspended and he be released on bail during the
pendency of the appeal.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and submits that the
second suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the
accused-applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide
order dated 17.11.2023 in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application No.674/2023, which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties on
the application for suspension of sentence
and perused the material available on
record.
Learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant has submitted that the trial court
has grossly erred in convicting and
sentencing the appellant-applicant vide
impugned judgment. It is argued that the
prosecution has failed to prove the fact
that the appellant applicant abducted the
victim and thereafter had sexually
assaulted her against her will. It is further
submitted that the appellant-applicant and
the victim are neighbours and earlier also,
the victim eloped with the appellant-
applicant. It is also submitted that as a
matter of fact, the appellant-applicant has
falsely been implicated in this case by the
family members of the victim on account
of enmity between the two families.
Learned counsel has submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove before the
trial court that on the date of incident, the
victim was less than 16 years of age.
Learned counsel has submitted that it is
surely a case of consent and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the appellant-applicant by producing
cogent and reliable evidence. It is further
submitted that the appellant-applicant is in
jail from last four and a half years and the
appeal preferred on his behalf is likely to
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:37:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50926-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1740/2025]
take time. It is, thus, prayed that the
sentenced awarded to the appellant-
applicant by the trial court may kindly be
suspended.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while
vehemently opposing the application for
suspension of sentence has submitted that
from the record produced before the trial
court, it is very well proved that on the
date of incident, the age of the victim was
16 years and ten months. It is further
submitted that since the victim was minor,
there is no question of her consent.
Learned Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that from the DNA report, the
allegation of sexual assault levelled
against the appellant-applicant has been
proved. It is argued that the appellant-
applicant abducted the minor victim and
thereafter had sexually assaulted and
detained her against her wishes. It is
further submitted that looking to the
gravity of the offence conducted by the
appellant applicant, the sentence awarded
to him by the trial court does not deserve
to be suspended.
Having considered the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded
to the accused appellant by the trial court.
Accordingly, this application for suspension
of sentence is dismissed."
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for
the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the present case as well as looking to the seriousness of the
offence(s) alleged against the accused-applicant and also
considering the fact that since the second suspension of sentence
application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was dismissed
on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023 and
thereafter except period of custody, there is no change in
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:37:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50926-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1740/2025]
circumstances, in our considered view, no case is made out to
allow the application for suspension of sentence.
7. Hence, the present third application for suspension of
sentence stands dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
40-upendra/-
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:37:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
