[2025:RJ.JP:25976] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 703/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 848/2025 Narendra Kumar Cum Chairman s/o Pyarelal Meghwal, aged about 34 years, R/o Ward No. 1, Mohalla Jatawas Kasba Bagad, P.s. Bagad District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (At Present Accused Appellant Sic Confined In Central Jail Bikaner) ....Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ....Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Kudi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Narendra Kumar Cum Chairman in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.71/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jhunjhunu whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 365, 377 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the report Exhibit P1 is registered against an unknown person and the evidence of victim clearly suggests that the report is registered at the instance of police. He further submitted that victim was medically examined by PW.14 Dr. Juglal [2025:RJ.JP:25976] (2 of 3) [SOSA.703/2025] Singh and he did not find any injury on anus area of victim. He further submitted that except oral evidence of victim, there is no other material on record to show involvement of present appellant. He further referred the discrepancies and material contradictions in the determination of age and submitted that the trial court has erroneously determined the age. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. He also submitted that complainant is intimated. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report, Exhibit P1 lodged by PW10 (maternal uncle of victim) about kidnapping and unnatural sexual assault with his nephew by an unknown person, FIR No. 247/2021 under Sections 363, 365, 377 IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at PS Bagad, Dist. Jhunjhunu. After investigation, police has filed charge sheet. After framing charge, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents. The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC and he has not submitted any defense evidence but exhibited two documents. The appellant was convicted and he was awarded maximum sentence of 20 years. 6. The trial court has determined the age of victim on the basis of date of birth as 01.06.2010 and the age of victim on date of incident was determined as less than 14 years. Initially, report was registered against unknown person but the appellant was [2025:RJ.JP:25976] (3 of 3) [SOSA.703/2025] subjected to test identification parade (TIP) and victim has identified him. 8. The victim was medically examined by PW.14 Dr. Juglal on 12.09.2021 and no injuries were found on anus area of victim. The biological samples were collected and FSL report, concludes that the alleles of male DNA profile obtained from underwear of victim is matching with the alleles of male DNA profile obtained from blood samples of accused. Exhibit P-46 also suggests that human semen was detected on rectal swab of victim. We have considered the evidence of victim recorded as PW1 before the trial court. The victim has deposed against the appellant and he has identified the appellant for committing sexual assault with him. In his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC exhibited as Exhibit P-10, the appellant has also narrated the incident and he remained firm. 9. Looking to the role and involvement as mentioned by victim in his statement and also the age of victim, I am of considered view that it is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail (SOS) can be granted to the accused though he was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 16.11.2021 in Bail Application No. 16909/2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, during trial. 10. In view of discussion made herein above, the SOS application preferred by appellant accused Narendra Kumar is hereby dismissed. 11. List appeal for hearing in November, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /29