[2025:RJ-JP:40045] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No.1724/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.216/2024 Rajulal S/o Jagdish, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of- Sardarpura, Police Station- Fuliyakalan, District-Bhilwara (Raj.). (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/09/2025 1. The instant 2nd suspension of sentence application is preferred by the appellant accused in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2024 in Sessions Case No.108/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), No.1, Ajmer whereby the appellant accused was convicted under Section363, 366, 343, 376(3) of IPC and Section 3/4(ii) of POCSO Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is in custody for more [2025:RJ-JP:40045] (2 of 4) [2nd SOSA-1724/2025] than two years and six months and his appeal has not been taken up for hearing. He also submits that this is a matter of consent and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner accused. He also submits that the petitioner accused is a young person and considering his future, his suspension of sentence application may be allowed. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and she submitted intimation slip to complainant-victim and further custody certificate of appellant-accused. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. After conviction of petitioner-accused on 18.01.2024 for offence under Sections 363, 366, 343 and 376(3) of IPC and Section 3/4 (ii) of POCSO Act, the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 20 years. The custody certificate indicate that the appellant has served two years six months and 14 days of imprisonment on 07.09.2025 which includes remission of 3 months and 10 days. 6. While considered suspension of sentence application on 01.07.2024, and dealt all the material available on record including order dated 11.01.2023 in bail application No.15702/2022 and statement of victim PW-3. The observation of this Court is read as under:- “6. A perusal of record indicated that appellant was released on bail during trial in pursuant to order dated 11.01.2023 in bail application No.15072/2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. We have gone through the statement of witnesses as referred by learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:40045] (3 of 4) [2nd SOSA-1724/2025] appellant. At this stage it is not possible for us to express any opinion in merits of the case. 7. The victim has named the appellant as accused, who committed rape with victim. As regard to age of the victim is concerned, we have considered document Ex.P-2 wherein at one place there is overwriting but at other places in same form, there is no overwriting. Further the date of birth mentioned as 15.11.2007 is supported with Secondary School Certificate exhibited as Ex.P-13. The trial court has concluded that the date of birth of victim is 15.11.2007. Learned counsel for appellant has referred Ex.D-1 (Aadhar Card) wherein date of birth of victim was recorded as 01.01.2010. As Aadhar Card is not a proof to prove date of birth, therefore same cannot be considered as proof for date of birth. 8. As regard to discrepancies in the statement of witnesses are concerned, same can only be considered at the stage of final hearing but not at this stage of consideration of bail. We have considered the fact that FSL report were exhibited as C1 and no opportunity was afforded to the appellant for cross-examination though this report is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. We have also considered the discrepancies as pointed out regarding colour of undergarment of victim. Again at this stage, there is other evidence on record which was relied by the trial court, therefore the discrepancies can be considered at the time of final adjudication of the matter. 9. Considering the fact that the matter pertains to POCSO Act and the trial court has convicted appellant under POCSO Act and further sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of 20 years, I am of [2025:RJ-JP:40045] (4 of 4) [2nd SOSA-1724/2025] considered view that appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.” 7. Herein, the date of birth of victim is 01.01.2010 and her age is less than 16 years on date of incident. The trial Court has determined the age as 14 years, 6 months and 4 days. 8. Considering the material on record, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner accused on bail. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant second suspension of sentence application preferred by applicant-accused Rajulal S/o Jagdish, is hereby dismissed. 10. List the criminal appeal for hearing in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/11