Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Singh S/O Sadhuram @ Sadhya vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:25712) on 27 September, 2023
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:25712]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.
1114/2020
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1614/2020
Ram Singh S/o Sadhuram @ Sadhya, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani Tan
Shayampura Police Station Bansur, Distt. Alwar (Confined In
Central Jail Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma with Mr. Sunil Kumar Chechi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/09/2023 The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 04.09.2021 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2020 in Sessions Case No. 94/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act cases) No. 2, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 376(2)(I) of IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years along with fine.
Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that this is a false and fabricated case and learned trial court did not considered the contradictions and (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:23:54 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25712] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1114/2020] inconsistencies and her father (PW-3) deposed that the date of birth of victim was 19.07.2005 but they have failed to produce birth certificate of victim. He further submitted that PW-4 is a teacher of private school, who exhibited school register but failed to produce birth certificate. He specifically referred the fact that mother of victim got sterilized in 2001 and evidence to this effect was led by the appellant in defence but the learned trial court did not considered the same. He further submitted that the entire defence witnesses including Sarpanch and others corroborated the fact that the mother of victim went for vasectomy, therefore, the age of prosecutrix was near almost 18 years. He further submitted that on record it was established that there was money dispute between the appellant and father of victim and when appellant demanded money from father of victim then he chose to register a false case against him. He further submitted that there was delay in registration of case and no sufficient explanation was submitted by the prosecution. He referred the statement of certain witnesses including PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 and submitted that these witnesses were present near the agriculture field wherein alleged incident was said to have taken place and these witnesses have not corroborated the story of prosecution. He further referred the discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of PW-1 to submit that neither she resisted nor she cried when allegedly appellant was in process of raping her which makes her untrustworthy. He specifically referred the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 to show that there was animosity with present appellant. He also referred the statement of PW-15 (Dr. Ranjana) and medical report to submit that no injuries were found on persona of victim. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:23:54 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25712] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1114/2020] He further submitted that out of 12 years sentence, appellant has already undergone more than seven years and two months, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that notice was already served to complainant.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
As per prosecution, the date of birth of victim was 19.07.2005 and learned trial court after considering the evidence on record submitted by prosecution and also the defence witnesses regarding vasectomy of mother of victim concluded that the age of victim on date of incident (22.12.2017) was 11 years 07 months and 03 days. Defence version referred by learned counsel for present appellant was considered before arriving at a conclusion by the trial court. Considering the fact that there are chances of unsuccessful vasectomy resulting in unwanted pregnancy, therefore, the grounds raised can only be considered at the time of final submission but not now.
Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances, we can only presume that victim was less than 12 years of age on the date of incident. The matter was registered on the basis of written report Ex. P/6 submitted on 22.02.2017 by father of victim wherein incident of 22.02.2017 was reported. Further, this victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.02.2017 and her statement was exhibited as Ex. P/5. The victim was also medically examined and her report was exhibited as Ex. P/2. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:23:54 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:25712] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1114/2020] We have considered the statement of PW-15 Dr. Ranjana who medically examined victim. We have also considered the statements of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 as referred by learned counsel for appellant. We have also considered the statement of PW-1 (victim), PW-2 (her mother) and PW-3 (her father). PW-2 denied the fact that there was animosity with present appellant. PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that when she was going to school, then she felt unconscious. We have considered the entire statement of this PW-1. We have considered the grounds as raised by learned counsel for appellant.
At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has already undergone more than seven years out of 12 years imprisonment but the age of victim is less than 12 years, therefore, looking to gravity and seriousness of offence, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case wherein the appellant can be enlarged on bail.
Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed.
Misc. application stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /107 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:23:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)