Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Upendra Singh @ Vipin Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:42688) on 23 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:42688]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1513/2025
Upendra Singh @ Vipin Singh S/o Ramashankar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Pure Kandhaisingh Dobyara, Police Station Haliyapur,
District Sultanpur, Uttarpradesh (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
23/09/2025
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 submits that the
appellant-applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), 506, 504 IPC and Section 66(e) of
I.T. Act, 2000. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-
applicant has wrongly been implicated in this matter. He submits
that the appellant-applicant was having a relationship with the
prosecutrix and post her marriage with PW-3, the relationship got
soar and an FIR in question has been lodged on 14.02.2019,
whereby there is no allegation of rape. There are statements of
PW-1 (prosecutrix) and PW-3 (her husband), which clearly reveal
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42688] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1513/2025]
that the alleged information with regard to the incident of the year
2015 was given to the husband of prosecutrix in the month of
December 2018 itself. He further submits that the story of the
prosecutrix has been inconsistent inasmuch as in statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix narrates the incident of the
year 2018, whereas in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
she specified that the incident took place in the year 2015. He
further submits that no recovery of incriminating video etc. has
been done from the appellant-applicant and only certain
photographs have been recovered where too, it is clear that it was
a consent relationship. He further submits that the recovery of
mobile and data from him is also questionable and also asserts
that the appellant-applicant is behind the bars for a period of
almost 6 years whereas the total conviction imposed upon the
appellant-applicant is ten years of rigorous imprisonment. He
thus, submits that the appellant-applicant is entitled for
suspension of sentence.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and submits that considering the
recovery of the photographs from the appellant-applicant, the
screenshot of the chats between the appellant-applicant and the
husband of the prosecutrix as well as the statement of the
prosecutrix, it is clear that the learned trial Court has thoroughly
considered the entire evidence threadbare and has passed a
detailed order convicting the appellant-applicant, therefore, the
application for suspension of sentence in question deserves to be
dismissed.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42688] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1513/2025]
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the facts that there are inconsistencies in the
year of the incident, the appellant-applicant has remained behind
the bars for a period of almost 6 years whereas the total
conviction imposed upon the appellant-applicant is ten years of
rigorous imprisonment, photographs exhibited and the delay in
lodging the FIR also raises question over the case set up by the
prosecution and the chances of hearing of the 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 appellant-applicant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS (Old Section 389 Cr.P.C.) is allowed
and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bikaner, vide
judgment dated 02.06.2025 in Sessions Case No.47/2019
(CIS No.217/2019), against the appellant-applicant namely;
Upendra Singh @ Vipin Singh S/o Ramashankar, 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 28.10.2025 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 23/09/2025 at 07:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42688] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1513/2025]
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/do 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
133-Love/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 07:53:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
