[2025:RJ-JP:16632] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1892/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2194/2023 Sonu S/o Bhurji, aged about 26 Years, R/o Village Gajuka, Police Station Sadar, District Alwar, Presently Shop No. C-77, Muhana Mandi, Muhana, District Jaipur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/04/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the evidence available on record i.e. statement of the witness-Sneha, whereby it is stated that the prosecutrix went with her and resided in her house and looking to the statement of the doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix, there are chances of acquittal of the appellant. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since last four years and three months. Counsel submits that hearing and disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, therefore the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:16632] (2 of 2) [SOSA-1892/2024] 2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since the first application of suspension of sentence submitted by the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024. Counsel submits that the date of incident is 06.11.2020 and at the relevant time, the age of the petitioner was hardly 15 years and she was minor and looking to the corroboration of oral evidence with the chemical FSL and DNA report, the first application of the petitioner was rejected, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the first application of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court after appreciating the arguments and the evidence available on record, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain the second application for suspension of sentence. 5. Accordingly, the second suspension of sentence application filed by the petitioner stands rejected. 6. Office is directed to list this appeal for hearing in the last week of July, 2025. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/4