[2025:RJ-JP:37054] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1046/2025 Atar Singh @ Dgarm Singh S/o Lt. Shri Roshan Jatav, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Damejar Kot Shirthara Kot Shirthara Police Station Johara Distt Morena Mp At Present Tenant At Behind Vidhyakpuri Police Station Vidhyakpuri Jaipur (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Jaipur Jail Distt. Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Patni Mr. B.R. Mathur For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 11/09/2025 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide judgment dated 20.12.2024 in Session Case No.21/2021 for the offences under Sections 3/4(2) and 9(L)/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergone maximum 20 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment respectively with default stipulation for committing penetrative sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about 12 years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:37054] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1046/2025] 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law and is perverse in nature because there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161, 164 of Cr.P.C. and Court statements. The mother of the prosecutrix PW1 has turned hostile. Even the prosecutrix has not identified the appellant during her testimony, which creates reasonable suspicion on the prosecution story. He further submitted that the appellant has undergone custody of about one and half year. The hearing of the appeal will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in further custody, hence the suspension of sentence application of the appellant may be allowed. 4. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that due to gap of five years in recording the statement of prosecutrix, her memory may become faded and she could not identify the appellant. This aspect was well considered by the trial Court itself in the impugned judgment. The offence is heinous in nature and victim has clearly narrated the incident. The sentence awarded is of 20 years thus, the appellant does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. 6. I have heard the rival contentions and scanned the matter carefully. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds the offence is grave in nature, involving penetrative sexual assault on [2025:RJ-JP:37054] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1046/2025] the victim aged 12 years. The sentence awarded is of 20 years and custody period undergone by the appellant is only one and half year. Merely because the prosecutrix has not identified the appellant in Court itself cannot be a sole ground to suspend the sentence at this stage when other incriminating material has been relied upon by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/10