[2025:RJ-JP:36880-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 733/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.73/2021 V.p Singh S/o Chironjilal Father/o Chironjilal, R/o Yakubpur, Police Station Vela, District Aureya (U.p) (Presently Confined At The Sewar Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Pal Singh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 11/09/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366A of IPC and 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused- applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he is in custody for last more than seven years. He further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the [2025:RJ-JP:36880-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-733/2024] accused-applicant for the offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. He further submits that the age of the victim is doubtful and the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused- applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide its order dated 29.03.2022, which reads as under:- “1. The appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard on the application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. In the initial statement, age of victim is stated to be as 17 years. It is also contended that the report, which was lodged initially did not mention name of the appellant, as the person, who had kidnapped the victim. Father of the victim, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had mentioned the age of victim on near estimation. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 5. We have considered the contentions and perused the record. 6. As per record, the victim was admitted in Class-I, wherein, her date of birth was mentioned as 13.04.2007. In the admission form also her date of birth is mentioned as 13.04.2007. In School Certificate, same date of birth is mentioned. As per date of birth mentioned in the record, age of victim is 12 years at the time of alleged occurrence. The victim in her statement has specifically levelled allegations of rape against the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:36880-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-733/2024] 7. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the accused-applicant and also considering the fact that since the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide its order dated 29.03.2022 and thereafter except period of custody, there is no change in circumstances, in our considered view, no case is made out to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /18