[2025:RJ-JP:30714] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2 nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.762/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2606/2023 Chetan S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of Chakwada, P.S. Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/08/2025 1. The instant 2nd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by the appellant-applicant accused Chetan S/o Shri Rameshwar (hereinafter referred to ‘the appellant’) in pending appeal, filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2023 in Sessions Case No.62/2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act alternatively under Section 376 of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is rigorous imprisonment of 12 years with fine of ₹1,00,000/-. 2. The first suspension of sentence application of this appellant accused is dismissed by this Court on 02.11.2023. [2025:RJ-JP:30714] (2 of 3) [SOSA-762/2025] 3. Latest custody certificate submitted by learned Public Prosecutor indicate that this appellant has undergone sentence of more than 3 years, 3 months and 9 days against awarded sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that there is a delay in lodging report by the complainant and the evidence of victim is not trustworthy. He further submits that this is a case of consensual relation and age of victim is not proved from cogent evidence. At last, he submits that the appellant has undergone substantial part of sentence and he is entitled to be released on bail (SOS). 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that the complainant is already informed about current suspension of sentence application. He also submitted that a reply has already been filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. On basis of a report Ex.P-9 lodged by complainant PW-3 (father of victim) about elopement of victim, FIR No.530/2019 was registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur. After recovery, a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner- accused. The victim has been examined as PW-1 before the trial Court and we have also considered her cross-examination. The trial Court has determined the age of victim on basis of date of birth i.e. 08.02.2002, and the age of victim on date of incident is 16 years 5 months. Any objection or discrepancy in [2025:RJ-JP:30714] (3 of 3) [SOSA-762/2025] determination of age can be considered at the time of final adjudication. 8. The trial Court has found that the evidence of victim is trustworthy and her consent is immaterial. The FSL Report Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-22 suggest that human semen was deducted on underwear and lower of victim and same is matching with DNA profile obtained from blood sample of accused. 9. Here in this case, this appellant accused has pleaded a false defence that from 18.07.2019 to 25.07.2019, he was suffering from dengue and was admitted in Alok Clinic and Research Centre, Sanganer (Plea of alibi). The trial Court has considered said defence evidence and found that a false defence has been created by present appellant accused. The trial Court has dealt with defence evidence in detail and it is evident that this accused has created false defence and examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The defence is found as false, and filed to present a false narrative. 10. Having considered the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, false defence presented by the appellant- accused, I am of considered view that appellant accused does not deserve any leniency on any ground. Therefore, the instant second suspension of sentence application is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant second suspension of sentence application filed by Chetan S/o Shri Rameshwar is hereby dismissed. 12. List the appeal for hearing in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/8