[2025:RJ-JP:47235] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.1993/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.08/2022 Mohit @ Mannu @ Manish Son Of Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Near Abkari Police Station Aburoad, District Sirohi, At Present Chupanchan Gali, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar, Police Station Beawar City, District Ajmer (Raj) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/11/2025 1. The instant 3rd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Mohit @ Mannu @ Manish Son Of Shri Mohanlal in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 07.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.160/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.2, Ajmer whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(ab) of IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as withdrwn [2025:RJ-JP:47235] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1993/2025] on 07.05.2025 but interim suspension of sentence application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on 20.05.2025. He further submits that first time he is arguing the matter on merit. Learned counsel has further pointed out the discrepancies and material contradictions in the instant case and submitted that there is no independent eye-witness to the incident. He further submits that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. He also referred evidence of PW-2 mother of victim and submitted that only after treatment victim has narrated incident of assault. He further submitted that in fact it is a dispute between landlord and tenant and to vacate the premises a false case has been registered against the petitioner. He also submits that the victim is a child witness and without corroboration her evidence cannot be relied by the Hon’ble Court. He further submits that the hymen of victim was found as intact and the petitioner is in custody since his arrest and at present he is already undergone more than 5 years and 11 months. He further referred medical and treatment record of victim and submitted that it is allergic disease and due to allergic disease, victim was treated by PW-4 Dr. Deepali Meena. He also submits that neither there is any independent evidence nor conclusive medical evidence to draw a conclusion of involvement of petitioner, therefore, he is entitled for suspension of sentence. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted a report received from concerned Police Station along with intimation to complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:47235] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1993/2025] 5. On basis of a written report dated 31.07.2020 lodged by PW- 3 father of victim about sexual assault by present appellant, an FIR No.460/2020 was registered at PS Beawar City, Ajmer on 30.07.2020. During investigation, statement of victim and other witnesses were recorded and the present petitioner accused was arrested and a charge-sheet is filed against him. After framing charge, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and in defence he has submitted one defence witness DW-1. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record has convicted present petitioner under Section 376(ab) of IPC and 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act and maximum sentence awarded to the present petitioner is 20 years. The petitioner is in custody since his arrest and the latest custody certificate submitted by the PP indicate that the appellant has undergone almost 5 years and 11 months. 6. The important witness is victim who is examined as PW-1 and he she has named and identified the present petitioner for penetrative sexual assault with her. The trial Court has opined about the age of victim on basis of date of birth on 19.08.2015, thus, the age of victim is definitely less than 12 years but specifically it is specifically 6 years. We have considered statement of PW-4 Dr. Deepali Meena and PW-5 Dr. Shiv Shankar and also considered report prepared by them. The medical evidence suggest that there was active bleeding in vagina of victim but there were cut and abrasion with foreign body (plastic ear plug). 7. We have considered the discrepancies and contradictions as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner but the age of victim [2025:RJ-JP:47235] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1993/2025] is less than six years and material on record clearly indicate that there was penetrative assault with her. Considering the age of victim and evidence of victim PW-1, there are no ground to consider release of present petitioner on bail and to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 8. The instant 3rd suspension of sentence application preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 9. List the criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/11