HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 32/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2279/2023 Sarfaraz Ahmd S/o Sh. Abdul Wahid, aged about 40 Years, R/o House No. 740, Lavan Ka Ghar, Bandri Ka Nasik P.S Subhash Chowk Jaipur (At Present Accused Appellant is Confined in Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 1. Counsel for the appellant submits that there are conflicting dates of birth of the victim on record of the trial Court. Counsel submits that as per Class 10th mark-sheet of the victim, his date of birth is 10.02.2005 and as per his birth certificate, his date of birth is 10.08.2005. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the prosecution was supposed to get the opinion of the medical board with regard to the correct age of the victim. Counsel submits that as per the allegations levelled by the victim and his father, the case does not travel beyond the offence under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act but overlooking this aspect, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section (2 of 3) [SOSA-32/2025] 5/6 of the POCSO Act. Counsel submits that there is forty days delay in lodging the FIR and no reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution. Counsel submits that as per the statements of the victim as well as the Investigating Officer, other students were also present in the Mosque but their statements were not recorded. Lastly, he argued that CCTV cameras were installed in the Mosque but the footage of the CCTV cameras were not taken, hence under these circumstances, the story narrated by the prosecution appears to be false. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the sentence of the appellant be suspended till final disposal of the appeal. 2 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submits that as per both certificate i.e. Class 10th and birth certificate of the victim, his date of birth was below eighteen years. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant has already been dealt by this Court on earlier occasions when his application for suspension of sentence was decided on 21.05.2024 and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain the second suspension of sentence application submitted by the appellant and the same is liable to be rejected. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Looking to the gravity of the matter and the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant by the victim that an unnatural offence was committed with him by his Teacher (3 of 3) [SOSA-32/2025] (appellant) himself in a holy and pious place like Mosque and at his residence. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the first suspension of sentence application of the appellant was rejected by this Court and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain the second suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant. 6. Accordingly, the second suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/1