[2025:RJ-JP:16326] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1872/2023 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3462/2023 N.S (Imaginary Name), Aged About 48 Years, (Presently Accused Appellant Is In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Ms. Sweta Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Devanshu Sharma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/04/2025 1. The instant suspension of sentence application is preferred by the appellant accused in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.95/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.2, Ajmer, whereby the appellant accused was convicted under Sections 376AB, 354 of IPC and Section 3/4, 5(L)(M)(N)/6, 9(L)/(M)(N)/10 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to the present appellant accused is 20 years. 2. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he is falsely implicated due to [2025:RJ-JP:16326] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1872/2023] matrimonial dispute with wife. He further submits that victim, her sister and her mother have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that there is a serious lapse while collecting the sample and sending the same to the FSL. He also submits that without any corroboration, the trial court has convicted the present appellant and same is bad in eye of law. He further referred the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by a co-ordinate bench and submitted that after recording statement of PW-1 to PW-3, the present accused appellant was released on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. At last, he submits that the appellant has to take care for his family responsibilities, therefore, his case may be considered leniently for grant of suspension of sentence. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor but learned counsel for the complainant supported the case of appellant for grant of suspension of sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted latest custody certificate and the same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of a written report submitted by PW-3 (mother of victim) about physical torturer, harassment and rape with her minor daughter by her husband, FIR No.205/2022 was registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer under Sections 376AB, 354 of IPC and Section 3/4, 5(L)(M)(N)/6, 9(L)/(M)(N)/10 of POCSO Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant accused. After framing charge, 15 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited by prosecution. [2025:RJ-JP:16326] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1872/2023] The appellant accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC but he did not file any defence evidence. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record has convicted and sentenced the appellant accused. 6. Admittedly, date of birth of victim is 11.12.2010 and same is proved from Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 by PW-4 Mukesh Kumar Sharma (teacher). As per conclusion drawn by trial court, the date of birth of victim was proved as 11.12.2010 and date of birth of younger sister was proved as 13.12.2012. As per evidence on record, age of victim and her sister is less than 12 years. 7. Victim was examined as PW-2 whereas mother of victim was examined as PW-3 and younger sister of victim was examined as PW-1. All three have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. 8. Here in this case, PW-6 Deepak Kumar (An outreach worker of an NGO) has narrated the entire incident after report on child helpline No.1098. The deposition of PW-6 was further supported by counsellor of NGO PW-8 Yogita. Victim was examined by PW-9 Dr. Poonam Agarwal and she prepared medical report Ex.P-6 and collected samples. As per FSL report Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19, there was human semen in vaginal swab of victim and the DNA profile of accused is matching with human semen found in vaginal swab of victim. 9. Investigating Officer Manish Sharma is examined as PW-11. Other witnesses were also examined by the prosecution. 10. Having gone through the evidence of PW-6 and PW-8, who rescued the victim after a report to child helpline and supported by FSL Report clearly indicate that victim was subjected to [2025:RJ-JP:16326] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1872/2023] penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted to a father who sexually assaulted his own 11 years’ old daughter. 11. Looking to gruesome and heinousness of offence, it is not appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. 12. In view of aforesaid, the instant application for suspension of sentence preferred by appellant accused-N.S. is hereby dismissed. 13. List the appeal for hearing in the month of August, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/32