[2025:RJ-JP:28140] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 719/2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 860/2024 Sonu Son Of Morsingh, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Ladpura Balram, Police Station Manoharthana, District Jhalwar (Raj) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Jhalawar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Sonu Son Of Morsingh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 02.04.2024 in Sessions Case No. 37/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases no.1, Jhalawar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with fine of ₹50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and [2025:RJ-JP:28140] (2 of 4) [SOSA-719/2024] falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that age of appellant is 19 years whereas age of victim is between 16 to 18 years and they both were friends having love affair between them. He further referred court observation about investigation and submitted that investigating officer has conducted shoddy investigation and has not collected proper evidence otherwise this is a false case. He further referred evidence of PW-1, particularly her cross-examination and submitted that panchayat has already made a decision about a dispute between the parties but appellant accused has failed to comply decision of panchayat so the instant report is lodged by complainant. He further submitted that there is a delay, which is not explained by complainant. He also submitted that the age of victim is not determined in accordance with law and without any document to support date of birth on record, the trial court has determined the age of victim as less than 18 years. He further submitted that PW-11 Dr. Nidhi Meena has examined victim after the incident and no injuries were found on body of victim. He further referred the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that the victim has made several improvements in her statement before the Court and she is not a trustworthy witness. Learned counsel has further submitted that father and mother of victim are heresay witness and they are not direct witness. He also submitted that report is registered only when this accused has allegedly threatened victim when he was in inebirated condition, but there is no corroboration of this allegation. At last, he submitted that the appellant accused is in custody for more than 2 years and 8 months and he is a young boy and disposal of appeal will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:28140] (3 of 4) [SOSA-719/2024] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted report received from concerned police station and also custody certificate. None present for complainant despite service. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 lodged by PW-1 victim about sexual assault on 25.12.2022 by appellant accused and subsequent criminal intimidation FIR no. 383/2022 was registered at P.S Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar on 27.12.2022. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited one document in evidence. This appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. 6. The trial court has determined age of victim on the basis of evidence of PW-4 Mangilal (Head Master) who exhibited school record. As per school record the date of birth of victim is 19.07.2009. Certain other documents like Aadhar Card, Jan Aadhar Card and PAN card shows that the date of birth of victim as 01.01.2009. The date of birth has to be determined in accordance with Section 94 of JJ Act and on 25.12.2022 the age of victim is less than 14 years on date of incident. The objection about age determination can be considered at the time of final adjudication but looking to material on record the date of birth of victim can be considered as 19.07.2009. Thus, age of victim is less than 14 years. [2025:RJ-JP:28140] (4 of 4) [SOSA-719/2024] 7. After the report the victim was medically examined by PW-11 Dr. Nidhi Meena and she prepared the medical report Ex. P/4. The FSL report is not on record though, learned counsel has submitted that FSL report is negative. We have considered evidence of PW- 11 Dr. Nidhi Meena and PW-8 Dr. Neelam. 8. The victim has named appellant accused for committing rape with her and admission in cross-examination by father of victim PW-2 indicate that the accused has not complied the direction of panchayat. The victim has clearly deposed against the appellant accused and age of victim is less than 14 years. 9. The period of custody of present appellant indicate that he is in custody for more than 2 years 8 months and 20 days and same is not sufficient to release appellant accused on bail. Thus, looking to age of victim and gravity of charge, this is not a fit case wherein appellant accused can be enlarged on bail. 10. Hence, the application for suspension of sentence preferred by Sonu, is hereby dismissed. 11. List appeal for hearing in the month of December, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /11