[2025:RJ-JP:18698] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1442/2023 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2731/2023 Rinku Saini @ Laden S/o Gopiram Saini, R/o Near Govt. Sr. Secondary School Tunga, Main Bazar, Tunga, P.s. Tunga, District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Rinku Saini @ Laden S/o Gopiram Saini in appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2023 in Sessions Case No.102/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases No.1) Jaipur Metro-I whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363 IPC and 5(l)/6 and 5(j)(2)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant party. He further submitted [2025:RJ-JP:18698] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1442/2023] that initially a report was registered by grand-father of victim for elopement of his grand-daughter and appellant was one of the suspects. He further submitted that this report was registered under Section 363 IPC but when victim was recovered she refused to go with her parents and she was sent to Nari Niketan. He referred the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D1) and submitted that victim was consenting party to the incident. He further submitted that as per prosecution, victim was pregnant and she admitted having physical relationship with her consent. He further submitted that victim was an adult as her birth year was 2001 and the prosecution has manipulated the facts to show that victim was less than 16 years of age. He further submitted that details of incident and also of subsequent incident were not mentioned by victim in her deposition, which is sufficent to discard her testimony. He further submitted that the victim and appellant were of same age group and both were known to each other since year 2019. He further referred the statement of PW-3 Dr. Prashant and submitted that no injuries were found on genital of victim. He further referred the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and exhibited as Ex.P-4 and submitted that the consent of victim was evident from statement recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate but after improving the statement under influence of family, victim has named appellant. He also referred the cross-examination and discrepancies unnoticed by learned trial court and submitted that the trial court has convicted appellant on surmises and conjectures. He also referred the period of custody and submitted that appellant is in custody for last more than 5 years and he is entitled to be released on bail. He further relied [2025:RJ-JP:18698] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1442/2023] upon judgment in case of Rohit Singh Vs. State of UP (SLP (Criminal) No.2883/2024 order dated 02.08.2024) and Robin Vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No.5226/2024 order dated 10.02.2025) and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail when substantial period of sentence was served by accused, as disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. On the basis of report, Ex.P-2 about elopement of victim on 21.07.2020, FIR No.167/2020 was registered under Section 363 IPC at P.S. Tunga, Jaipur City East by PW-5 grandfather of victim. In the report, appellant was named as suspect. After recovery of victim, her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and exhibited as Ex.D1 wherein the victim has stated that she has consensual physical relationship with appellant. The statement of victim was further recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and exhibited as Ex.P4. The victim has indicated her date of birth as 28.12.2001 and age as 19 years. As per medical report, she was found pregnant and under the order dated 31.07.2020, the pregnancy of victim was terminated, preserving fetus. The police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. 5. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited Ex.D1. The appellant was [2025:RJ-JP:18698] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1442/2023] convicted under Section 363 IPC, 5(l)/6 and 5(j)(2)/6 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded is 20 years. 6. The statement of victim was recorded as PW-1 whereas statement of doctors were recorded as PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9. We have gone through these statements. The age of victim was proved by PW-4 Chandrakal and as per record Ex.P-10 and Ex.P11 the date of birth is 02.03.2004. In cross-examination, PW-4 has failed to show that on what basis, victim was admitted in school in year 2008. Whatever be the case, there is no other document on record on the contrary but on the basis of this, the trial court has determined the age of victim. 7. Otherwise also, secondary school certificate of year 2018 was exhibited as Ex.P-5A wherein also the date of birth was recorded as 02.03.2004. The age of victim on date of incident was around 16years. At the time of recovery, victim was having pregnancy of 22 weeks. It indicated that the victim has conceived when her age was less than 16 years, whereas the age of appellant is approximately 20 years. 8. Having considered the evidence of victim and other relevant medical evidence, it is established that the victim was minor at the time of first physical relation and her consent is immaterial. Moreover victim was carrying pregnancy of 22 weeks when she was recovered by police. Ultimately, this pregnancy was terminated by order of this Court. 9. In case of Rohit Singh Vs. State of UP (supra) and Robin Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on the ground of period of custody undergone by them but herein the matter pertains to POCSO Act wherein the [2025:RJ-JP:18698] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1442/2023] age of victim is less 16 years and she was found pregnant on date of recovery after FIR, therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments are not helpful for appellant. 10. In view of gravity and seriousness of offence, SOS application of appellant accused Rinku Saini @ Laden is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. 11. List criminal appeal for hearing in month of November, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /03