[2025:RJ-JP:801-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1424/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.46/2020 Daulat Ram S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Kherli, P.S. Mantown, Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sevar Bharatpur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1228/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.87/2020 Sushil Kumar S/o Chiranji Lal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Echer P.S. Chauth Ka Barwara, Distt. Sawaimadhopur. (At Present Lodged In The Distt. Jail, Sawaimadhopur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain Mr. Ashvin Garg For State For Complainant/Victim : : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. G.A. with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Mr. Vishnu Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 07/01/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:801-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1424/2024] 1. Accused-applicants have preferred these second applications for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on second applications for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel appearing for the accused- applicants that applicants have remained in custody for a period of about six years. The first application for suspension of sentence of both the applicants was dismissed on 01.12.2020. A period of more than four years have lapsed, but the appeal has not come up for hearing so far. It is also contended that applicants were aged 18 years & 20 years respectively, at the time of the alleged incident. Initial statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was withheld by the prosecutrix. It is further contended that as per statement of mother of the prosecutrix, her marriage took place 25 years prior to the incident and the first child was born two years after the marriage, as per which, the victim was major. 4. It is further contended that Board Certificate has not been produced before the Court to establish the age of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that DNA report was also not placed before the Court to establish the commission of the offence of rape. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel appearing for the complainant/victim have opposed these second applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended that school register and admission form were produced before the Court to establish that prosecutrix was a minor. It is also contended that there is no requirement under the law to present [2025:RJ-JP:801-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1424/2024] DNA report. It is further contended that statement of the victim alone is relevant. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. Taking note of the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicants as well as the fact that accused-applicants have remained in custody for a period of about six years; they were both of tender age 18 & 20 years respectively, at the time of the alleged incident; disposal of appeal will take time; first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 01.12.2020, without commenting upon merits of the case, we deem it proper to allow these second applications for suspension of sentence. 8. Accordingly, these second applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicants in Sessions Case No.15/2019 shall remain suspended if the accused-applicants furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so. 9. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT/34-35