[2025:RJ-JP:33217-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. III Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1113/2025 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No.110/2022 Ranpal Alias Ritu S/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ghuma Nangali, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meruit (U.P.) At Present Residing At Dinesh Colony, Karauli, Police Station Khushkheda, District Alwar Rajasthan (At Present in Central Jail, Alwar) ----Accused-Applicant Versus The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat,P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 22/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINAN,J: 1. This third application for suspension of sentence is filed during pendency of the appeal. The earlier two applications were dismissed as not pressed on 06.01.2023 and 19.07.2024. Vide judgment dated 29.04.2022, the applicant was convicted under Section 5(m)/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) in Sessions Case No.13/2022. Vide order of even date, the applicant was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:33217-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1113/2025] 2. The brief facts are that on 03.04.2022, mother of the victim (name withheld) filed a complaint alleging that on 02.04.2022, the applicant made physical relation with the victim, aged seven years. It was stated that the applicant is staying in the same compound and on pretext of giving sweets to the victim, who was playing in the courtyard took her to his room. The victim was bleeding from private parts and narrated the entire incident to her mother. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal is pending before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. There was hostility between two parties and it is a case of false implication. Contention is that there were other children playing in the courtyard and there was no chance for incident to occur with an open door of the room. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the victim in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and in the deposition before the Court has supported the case of the prosecution. Further that the medical evidence proved the sexual relation made with the victim. FSL report was clear that semen detected on clothes & private parts of victim, matched with DNA of the applicant. Submission is that there is no evidence produced to prove the hostility relation between the parties. 5. Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, onus is on the accused to prove the innocence. The statements of the victim and medical record were heavily relied upon by the trial Court for establishing the foundational facts and conviction of the applicant. The [2025:RJ-JP:33217-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1113/2025] contentions now raised will be subject matter of the appeal and need not be dilated upon at this stage. 6. The observations made here-in-above shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the case and are only for the purpose of deciding the application for suspension of sentence. 7. The custody period of the applicant and the nature of offence committed cannot be a sole criteria for suspending the sentence. 8. The third application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /07