[2025:RJ-JP:45162] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 229/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2029/2021 Amarsingh S/o Parsadi, Resident Of Village Hadhodi, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Presently Accused Petitioner Confined At Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur) ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For petitioner (s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/11/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor on the second application for suspension of execution of sentence. Despite information, no one appears on behalf of the complainant/victim to oppose the application. Since the original record is missing and not tagged herewith, the application is being decided on the basis of the certified copies of the record of the trial court, made available by counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Office is directed to make sincere efforts for tracing out the record and tag the same with the appeal as soon as same is traced out. [2025:RJ-JP:45162] (2 of 5) [SOSA-229/2025] 2. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 376(A)(B) of IPC vide judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.1, Bharatpur (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.57/2019 (64/2019) and has been sentenced to twenty years R.I. 3. First application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of accused-applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant, as mentioned above. Learned trial court has not appreciated evidence in right and correct perspective. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of forty days for which no plausible/reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution record. It is further submitted that even, this delayed FIR was lodged only after the accused-applicant's brother had registered an FIR of arson against the father of the victim, thereby suggesting a strong possibility of false implication due to personal vendetta. Counsel further contends that the allegations levelled by the victim are wholly unsupported by medical evidence. It is submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the accused-applicant was about 69 years of age and during his medical examination, no signs of erection were found. It is also urged that the presence of the applicant’s DNA on the clothes of [2025:RJ-JP:45162] (3 of 5) [SOSA-229/2025] the victim holds no evidentiary value, as the said clothes were forwarded to the FSL almost four days after the applicant’s arrest and medical examination. Such delay, counsel submits, causes a serious doubt about the integrity of the samples and leaves open the possibility of tampering or contamination. The rule of prudence and standard forensic protocol require that biological samples be sealed and transmitted to the FSL immediately after collection, so as to ensure authenticity of the evidence. The prosecution’s failure to adhere to this mandatory safeguard, therefore, casts a serious shadow on the credibility and reliability of the forensic findings relied upon by it. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in confinement since 30.03.2019 and has attained the age of 75 years, and there is no likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future. Hence, by the time the appeal is listed for final disposal, the applicant would either have undergone the entire sentence or, owing to his advanced age, may not survive the duration of incarceration, thereby rendering the appeal infructuous. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes submissions made by the learned counsel for accused-applicant. It is submitted that at the time of alleged incident, victim was below 12 years of age. He argues that looking to the nature of allegations and gravity of offence, the instant application for SOS may be dismissed. 6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused-applicant and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record, especially the fact the [2025:RJ-JP:45162] (4 of 5) [SOSA-229/2025] FIR was filed after an inordinate delay of 40 days; samples were forwarded to the FSL almost four days after the applicant’s arrest and medical examination; the appellant who is 75 years old man, is in custody since 30.03.2019 and has served more than six years imprisonment & there are bleak chances of hearing of appeal in near future, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Thus, without making any comment on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused- applicant during pendency of the instant appeal. 7. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.1, Bharatpur (Raj.) vide judgment dated 07.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.57/2019 (64/2019) against the accused-applicant Amarsingh S/o Parsadi, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in the Court on 11.12.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:45162] (5 of 5) [SOSA-229/2025] 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), he will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /46