[2025:RJ-JP:25967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 99/2023 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.738/2022 Dinesh Bheel S/o Shri Shyamlal Mama Bheel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dandiya @ Haripura Khurd, Police Station Mandawar, District Jhalawar At Present Jalimpura Sahrawada, Police Station Modak, District Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/07/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused Dinesh Bheel S/o Shri Shyamlal Mama Bheel in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2022 in Sessions Case No.113/2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Kota, whereby the applicant-accused was convicted under Section 376 AB IPC and Section 5(M)/6 POCSO Act, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with fine of ₹10,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for applicant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that applicant is an innocent person and he is falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the discrepancies and material [2025:RJ-JP:25967] (2 of 4) [SOSA-99/2023] contradictions in the statement of victim (PW-1) and other witnesses. He further submitted that there is a serious discrepancy in collection of samples and deposition to FSL. He further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the report to Police and this delay was not explained by prosecution. He also submitted that no document is filed on record to prove age of victim and age is determined on basis of hypothetical evidence. He also submitted that applicant-accused is in custody for last more than 6 years, 11 months and 19 days and he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He has submitted latest custody certificate and same is taken on record. He also submitted that complainant is already intimated about the case. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of report (Ex.P-1) lodged by victim (PW-1) about incident of rape committed by applicant-accused in the evening of 22.05.2019, FIR No.134/2019 registered on 23.05.2019 under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, at P.S. Modak, District Kota. During investigation, applicant-accused was arrested on 24.05.2019, since then, he is in custody. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the applicant-accused. 6. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents and 6 articles. The applicant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has not submitted any defence evidence. The applicant-accused was convicted and sentenced. [2025:RJ-JP:25967] (3 of 4) [SOSA-99/2023] 7. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.05.2019 and exhibited as Ex.P-7, wherein she has corroborated the report lodged by her. The victim was medically examined on 24.05.2019 and report (Ex.P-6) suggests that no fresh injuries were found. The Trial Court has determined the age of victim as less than 12 years on basis of DoB 07.07.2008. Thus, victim was less than 12 years of age on date of incident. 8. This victim examined as PW-1 before the Trial Court and in Examination-in-Chief, she has narrated the incident as mentioned in report (Ex.P-1) and also in her statement Ex.P-7. Cross- examination also suggests that name of accused is disclosed by her aunty. Victim was medically examined by PW-11 (Dr. Nidhi Golcha) and she did not found any injury on genital of victim. She has also exhibited FSL report (Ex.P-25) and DNA report (EX.P-26). A perusal of report Ex.P-25 indicate that human semen was found in vaginal smear and swab of victim. Ex.P-26 (DNA report) indicate that DNA profile obtained from blood sample of accused is matching with DNA profile obtained from stains on underwear of victim and vaginal swab of victim. 9. Considering aforesaid, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail on merits. The applicant-accused has undergone more than 6 years, 11 months and 19 days, but considering the age of victim is less than 12 years, it is not a fit case to enlarge applicant-accused on bail on grounds of period of custody. 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused Dinesh Bheel S/o Shri Shyamlal Mama Bheel, is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:25967] (4 of 4) [SOSA-99/2023] 11. List this criminal appeal for hearing in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /06