[2025:RJ-JP:42567] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1964/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2130/2022 Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Ramchandra Yadav, R/o Majra Aheer, Police Station Harsora, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 14/10/2025 1. The instant third application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Ramchandra Yadav in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.09.2022 in Sessions Case No. 75/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act cases) no.4, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. The first SOS application of appellant was dismissed on 06.09.2023 and second on 24.09.2024 and now it is third SOS application. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law [2025:RJ-JP:42567] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1964/2025] learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that appeal is not likely to be considered in near future and appellant, a young boy is facing charge in false case. He further submitted that appellant has already served around 5 years in custody. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate along with report and intimation slip and same are taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The first SOS application was dismissed by this Court on 06.09.2023 and we have observed as under: “Now when we come to merits of the case, then on report of PW2 mother of victim, FIR No.210/2021 was registered on 10.09.2021. The incident which was allegedly committed by present appellant was of 06.09.2021 but it was disclosed when other appellant Kuldeep demanded sexual intercourse from victim on 09.09.2021. We have considered the statement of PW9 Doctor Manisha and also report Ex.P3 prepared by her wherein she reported that hymen was intact and no bodily injuries were found on genital of victim. FSL report Ex.C2 was also referred wherein also nothing was found against present appellant vis-a-vis [2025:RJ-JP:42567] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1964/2025] victim. The fact that DW1 and DW2 with certain documents have alleged a land dispute with family of victim. We have considered this particularly, in light of statement of PW2 mother of victim, PW3 aunty of victim, PW4 grand father of victim, PW5 uncle of victim, PW6 grand mother of victim and PW8 father of victim. Having considered aforesaid, the grounds raised by the appellant can only be considered at the time of final disposal of present case. In this matter, learned trial court on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution came to conclusion that age of victim on date of incident was 13 years and 3 months, therefore, the age of victim was less than 14 years and there was only one incident of rape against present appellant. The defence is not that appellant is having any friendly relationship with victim.” 7. The second SOS application is considered by this Court on 24.09.2024 and we have observed as under: “8. On basis of Ex. P.1 FIR was registered on 09.09.2023 wherein the incident mentioned was of 06.09.2021 but the report Ex. P-1 indicate that there were two incidents firstly of 06.09.2021 and secondly of 09.09.2021. This was further corroborated in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 10.09.2021 and exhibited as Ex. P-5. The record clearly reflect that the report was registered for both the incidents, hence, there is no delay. 9. To prove the age of victim the prosecution has examined PW-16 Anil Kumar Yadav, who exhibited as Ex. D-9, P-23 and P-24 and according to PW-16 the date of birth of victim was 01.06.2008. Though an affidavit Ex. P-9 was also [2025:RJ-JP:42567] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1964/2025] exhibited wherein age of victim was shown as 13 years. 10. The accused has also exhibited D-9 wherein also date of birth recorded as 01.06.2008. There is no other document Ex. D-9, Ex. P-23 and P.24. Thus, the date of birth of victim is 01.06.2008. 11. The Trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the age of victim is 13-14 years on date of incident. No other record is available to differ from the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. 12. We have considered the statement of PW-9 Dr. Manisha who prepared medical report Ex. P-3 and according to her, hymen was normal and intact and she opined that age should be 17-19 years. PW-9 has reserved her opinion about rape till FSL report is received. The FSL Report Ex. C-1 and C-2 is not helpful in drawing any conclusion about rape. The defence of present petitioner- accused is dispute relating to land, with complainant part and we have considered this issue as well. There is nothing on record to establish that only be cause of land dispute between the parties, the petitioner-accused was implicated. The case of co-accused Kuldeep is different than present petitioner Krishan Kumar. 13. The victim has supported the case of prosecution though, there is delay of 3 days in reporting the first incident to police but there were two incidents and the victim while examining as PW-1 before the Trial Court has corroborated the story of prosecution.” 8. The appellant has undergone more than 4 years 7 months and 30 days out of awarded sentence of 20 years. Co-accused [2025:RJ-JP:42567] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1964/2025] Kuldeep Yadav, who is having lesser charge has allowed SOS application. The age of victim is less than 14 years, therefore considering the reasons as assigned in 2nd SOS application, this is not a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 9. As regard to period of custody is concerned, it is less than 25% of total awarded sentence and not sufficient to consider SOS application. Again the age of victim is less than 14 years thus the gravity of offence has to be considered while considering SOS. 10. Accordingly, SOS application preferred by appellant Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Ramchandra Yadav is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /17