Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh @ Chhotu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 January, 2020
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 95/2020
Govind Singh @ Chhotu Singh S/o Sh. Madhu Singh, Aged About
26 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Van Police Station
Barlloot, Dist. Sirohi. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. RR Chaparwal, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 17/01/2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.95/2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that as per the complainant, the alleged incident was occurred on 18.09.2016, however, FIR in relation to the same was filed on 24.09.2016. It is submitted that in the complaint, there is no allegation of sexual assault against the appellant Govind Singh @ Chotu Singh. It is submitted that during the course of police investigation, statements of minor daughter of the complainant as well as the complainant were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein both of them did not level allegation of sexual assault (Downloaded on 17/01/2020 at 10:15:23 PM) (2 of 4) [SOSA-95/2020] against the appellant but only stated that the appellant was standing and helping co-accused Shrawan Singh while he was committing rape upon his minor daughter. It is further submitted that for the first time, the allegation of sexual assault was levelled against the appellant by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, those statements were recorded after around one month and eight days of the incident. It is submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case on account of enmity between the families of the complainant and him. It is also submitted that appellant is in custody since October, 2016, however, the appeal preferred on behalf of him will take time in final disposal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application for suspension of sentence and stated that the prosecutrix in her court statements has levelled allegation of sexual assault against appellant as well as co-accused Shrawan Singh. It is also submitted that on the day of the incident, age of the prosecutrix was fifteen years and as such the appellant is guilty of commission of heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having taken into consideration the fact that initially the prosecutrix and the complainant did not level allegation of sexual assault against the appellant but levelled such allegation against co-accused Shrawan Singh and for the first time, allegation of sexual assault was levelled against the appellant after around more than one month, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive (Downloaded on 17/01/2020 at 10:15:23 PM) (3 of 4) [SOSA-95/2020] sentence awarded to the accused appellant.
Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.95/2020 filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 03.11.2018 in Sessions Case No.19/2018 against appellant Govind Singh @ Chhotu Singh S/o Sh. Madhu Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, 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 17.02.2020 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.
2. That if the appellant 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, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also (Downloaded on 17/01/2020 at 10:15:23 PM) (4 of 4) [SOSA-95/2020] 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
26-Taruna
(Downloaded on 17/01/2020 at 10:15:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)