[2025:RJ-JP:17506] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 726/2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 867/2024 Girish @ Girraj S/o Chitarmal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Bhabru Thana Shahapura District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Accused In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 24/04/2025 1. Instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 16.03.2024 in Sessions Case No. 51/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jaipur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Section 506, 376(3) and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant-accused submitted that appellant-accused is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by the complainant party. He further referred the evidence of the case and submitted that as per report submitted by brother of victim, there is no incident of rape for last one and a half year from date of registration of case. He further submitted that the victim has alleged that her video was captured but no [2025:RJ-JP:17506] (2 of 3) [SOSA-726/2024] such video was recovered by police. He also submitted that he has submitted vouchers of mobile handset to show that mobile handset was purchased after the alleged incident. He further referred the statement of victim and submitted that no allegation of rape was made against the appellant-accused but after an improvement in her previous statement, victim has alleged that appellant-accused has committed rape. He further referred the statement of PW-3 and submitted that neither injury was found on the body of victim nor there is any FSL Report to support the claim of rape. He further referred the SR Register and submitted that even there was over-writing and cutting in Ex. P-14 and there is no signature of father of victim. He has further referred the defence and submitted that as per defence there were financial transactions between the parties and financial transactions were proved by appellant-accused. At last, he submitted that appellant- accused is in custody for last more than 4 years and he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prose- cutor. He has submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Pros- ecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of report dated Ex. P-2 filed by brother of victim on 07.06.2021 about incident since 01.01.2019, FIR No. 299/2021 was registered at Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rural) under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act on 07.06.2021. 6. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against the appellant-accused. After framing the charge under Section [2025:RJ-JP:17506] (3 of 3) [SOSA-726/2024] 5(L)/6 POCSO Act alternatively Section 376(2)(n) IPC and 376(3), 506 IPC, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and exhib- ited 15 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he opted not to submit any defence witness. Five documents were exhibited in defence. The Trial Court on basis of evidence on record has convicted present appellant-accused under Sections 506, 376(3) IPC and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act. 7. As regards to age is concerned, the prosecution has claimed date of birth as 15.07.2003 and victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made it clear that her age is 17 years and 9 months. As per FIR, and also the statement of victim recorded as PW-1, the appellant-accused is in contact with victim since 01.01.2019 and the first incident is of 01.01.2019 and thereafter 2-3 more incidents, it means before registration of FIR, On 3-4 oc- casions accused has committed rape with victim. The reasons of reporting is harassment by petitioner-accused, who is following he despite her engagement to ruin her marital prospects. 8. Having gone through the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case wherein appellant- accused who wants to ruin the social prestige of victim is continu- ously trying to occupying the possession of victim, thus, the ap- pellant-accused is not entitled for bail. 9. In view of aforesaid, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sen- tence Application preferred by Girish @ Girraj S/o Chitarmal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /12