[2025:RJ-JP:25973] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1496/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1495/2024 Pradeep Verma @ Piyush Son Of Shri Ramgopal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Roteda Police Station Kapren, District Bundi (Raj) Presently Tenant Of House Of Gopal Bairwa, Bairwa Colony, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan (East) (Raj) (Presently The Accused Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Heramb Saraswat, Mr. Rahul Sonal, and Mr. Lokendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Choudhary Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/07/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused Pradeep Verma @ Piyush S/o Shri Ramgopal in pending appeal, filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.06.2024 in Sessions Case No.02/2024 (CIS No.10/2024) passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.3, Jaipur Metro-I, whereby applicant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) read with Section 376 (2)(N) IPC and Sections 3/4, 5/6 and 16/17 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to present applicant-accused is 20 years. [2025:RJ-JP:25973] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1496/2024] 2. Learned counsel for applicant while relying upon on grounds of appeal submits that PW-3 (father of victim) has registered a report (Ex.P-4) for elopement his minor daughter under Section 363 IPC. He further submitted that after recovery, the statement of victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein victim has not made any allegation for use of force or forcible rape by applicant-accused rather these statements suggest that victim has voluntarily left her home, and present applicant-accuses is not responsible for enticement in elopement of victim. He also submitted that as per medical report Ex.P-8, no injuries were found on genital of victim and there is no FSL report to corroborate any physical relation between victim and accused. He further submitted that victim was examined before the Trial Court as PW-2, and in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she voluntarily recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of victim beyond reasonable doubt and the age documents filed by prosecution, are not trustworthy. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-3 (father of victim), PW-9 (Dr. Anju Arora) and PW-13 (Mahendra Singh) and submitted that this case is purely of consent and the relations were dominated by victim and she forced the applicant-accused for elopement and indulge in physical relation. He also submitted that as per prosecution story, the victim has stayed for a night in a Maruti Van and it is not possible to commit rape in Maruti car, as people may come to rescue or help victim, as and when she made hue and cry. He further submitted that material on record clearly suggests that there was a previous dispute about payment relating to services of [2025:RJ-JP:25973] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1496/2024] Tanker, and due to this animosity, applicant-accused was falsely implicated by complainant. He also referred the cross-examination of PW-2 (victim) and submitted that her evidence clearly suggests that she voluntarily left her home and she was in fact rescued or helped by present applicant-accused, and it is not a case of rape. At last, he submitted that this applicant-accused is in custody for last 1 year and 11 months and disposal of case will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the Trial Court has observed that there is a poor investigation by police. He further submitted that age of victim is less than 15 years and same is proved from school record. He further submitted that consent of victim, is immaterial in such case. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of report (Ex.P-4) lodged by PW-3 on 18.07.2023 about missing of his 15 years old daughter and suspicion of enticement by applicant-accused, FIR No.434/2023 was registered under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur (East). After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against the applicant-accused. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witness and exhibited 22 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but he has not submitted any defence evidence though exhibited 3 documents. [2025:RJ-JP:25973] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1496/2024] The applicant-accused is convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. 6. The material on record clearly suggests that after some difference with family, victim has voluntarily left her home and accused met her at Sanganer Bus Stop from where, she accompanied accused. The age of victim is determined by the Trial Court on basis of evidence of PW-1 (Ramesh Chand Sharma) and document Ex.P-1 to Ex.P3. The record suggests that the DoB of victim is 10.07.2008 and on basis of DoB, the Trial Court has determined the age of victim as less than 16 years. Since, the age of victim is less than 16 years, therefore, her consent is immaterial. The victim in her statement, has clearly alleged that accused has made physical relation with her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has deposed that with her consent, she and accused had physical relation. The only issue before the Court is the age of victim, and looking to age of victim as less than 16 years, the consent of victim is immaterial. 7. The grounds raised by learned counsel requires consideration at the time of final adjudication, but looking to age of victim as less than 16 years, this is not a fit case to grant SOS to present applicant-accused. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused Pradeep Verma @ Piyush S/o Shri Ramgopal, is hereby dismissed. 9. List this criminal appeal for hearing in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /49