[2025:RJ-JP:3671] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 3rd Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2051/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1595/2023 Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Leela Ram Gurjar, Resident Of Nayan Police Station Nangal Choudhary District Mohindar Garh (Haryana) (Accused Presently Confined N Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hawa Singh with Mr.. Rakhan Pandey, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 24/01/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 10.07.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.115/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.4, Alwar whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 376(1) of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon the grounds of appeal submitted that a false and concocted case has been filed against the petitioner wherein prosecutrix has deposed under the pressure of her family. He further submitted that the statement of [2025:RJ-JP:3671] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2051/2024] prosecutrix is not trustworthy as she herself called the appellant and there is no evidence for use of force by the appellant. He further submitted that the trial court has overlooked the material contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses. He also referred the grounds as raised at the time of first SOS and submitted that appellant is sole bread-earner of his family. He further submitted that father of appellant has expired and he is having responsibility of his physically handicapped brother. At last, he submitted that there is no evidence on record from mobile phone or any other digital means that this appellant has ever clicked any photograph and blackmailed prosecutrix. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. After conviction on 07.06.2023 in sessions case No.115/2020 for offence under Section 376(1) IPC the appellant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of ₹20,000/-. The first SOS application No.955/2023 was dismissed by this Court on 21.08.2023. Thereafter SLP (Criminal) No.13495/2023 is preferred by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Instant second SOS application No. 972/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2024 and now appellant has preferred third SOS application. 6. While dismissing the SOS application on 21.08.2023, we have discussed as under: [2025:RJ-JP:3671] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2051/2024] A perusal of record indicated that this appellant was released on bail on 29.06.2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7141/2021 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. The report was registered by PW-1 on 06.08.2020 wherein she alleged that appellant on the basis of inappropriate photographs, threatened and committed rape even after her marriage. On the basis of this, after registration of FIR, victim was examined under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 14.08.2020, wherein she alleged rape on multiple occasions by present appellant. After charge, this victim was examined as PW-1 before the trial court and again she corroborated her story and stated that she got married on 13.04.2019. As per PW-1, present appellant continued to commit rape with her even after her marriage. When we consider cross- examination of PW-1, then she admitted that she had seen her inappropriate photographs in mobile phone of appellant in March,2019 but after 04.08.2020, she had not seen any of such photographs. During cross- examination, she admitted that photographs Ex.D-5 to Ex.D-8 were clicked in her room at her matrimonial home. She further admitted that these photographs were not related to incident of 2019. Victim was medically examined by PW-8 (Dr. Laxmi) and she exhibited medical report as Ex.P-5, FSL report as Ex.P-16 and DNA report as Ex.P-17. In defence, two witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 were examined to prove date of birth of victim as 27.06.2001. Having considered aforesaid, particularly the fact that four photographs Ex.D-5 to Ex.D-8 were exhibited in defence by the accused though these photographs were clicked in matrimonial house of victim. It is admitted fact that appellant was regular [2025:RJ-JP:3671] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2051/2024] visitor to the house of victim after her marriage but herein this case if appellant accused himself claimed to be possession of certain photographs which in ordinary course of nature were inappropriate from all angles. Definitely in case of any dispute between two individuals continued possession of such photographs is a serious threat to well being of any woman. 7. Herein the petitioner has exhibited four photographs Ex.D5 to Ex.D-8 and we have opined that keeping continuous possession of indecent photographs in compromising position is itself threat to well being of a woman like present victim. Herein the victim has supported the case of prosecution and after considering the material on record, learned trial court has convicted the appellant. The appellant has already undergone nearly 2 years 10 months of sentence out of total period of 10 years. 8. A perusal of record indicated that father of appellant has expired on 25.06.2024. A certificate in the name of Amar Singh, issued on 08.12.2005 is also on record for the purpose that Amar Singh, brother of appellant is physically handicapped. Having considered the grounds as raised by learned counsel for appellant, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case to release appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, third SOS application is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /188