[2025:RJ-JP:16012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 507/2023 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.516/2023 Ramtudu S/o Ringta Tudu, Resident Of Utar Parol Post Office Shakuntala Police Station Chowkiliya Distrit Utar Dinazpur (West Bengal) At Present Labour Graphic Marble Factory Udyog Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta with Mr. Chitransh Saxena & Mr. Dharmendra Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/04/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused- Ramtudu S/o Ringta Tudu in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.01.2023 in Sessions Case No.36/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.2, Alwar, whereby, applicant-accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366A, 376AB IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to applicant-accused is 20 years. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the instant case. [2025:RJ-JP:16012] (2 of 3) [SOSA-507/2023] He also submits that there was no injury on body of the victim, but the Trial Court has ignored the cross-examination of doctor. He also submits that no one has witnessed the incident. He also submits that victim is a child and she is a tutored witness. He also submits that the material contradictions were ignored by the Trial Court. He further submitted that medical was conducted at 01.25 whereby FIR was registered at 02.35. He also referred the findings recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that without any justifiable reason, applicant-accused was convicted and sentenced. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submits custody certificate and complainant was already informed. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of a written report (Ex.P-6) filed by father of victim about sexual assault with her five years old daughter FIR No.425/2022 was registered at P.S. Udhyognagar, District Alwar under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against the applicant-accused. After framing of the charge, the applicant-accused has faced trial and during trial 15 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited by prosecution. Applicant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he opted not to file defence evidence. The Trial Court has convicted present applicant under Section 363, 366A and 376AB IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act. 6. A perusal of record indicate that within few hours of the incident, the matter was reported to police and on very same day, the victim was taken to the hospital. A copy of FIR (Ex.P-7) [2025:RJ-JP:16012] (3 of 3) [SOSA-507/2023] indicate that FIR was drawn at 02.33 AM, whereas information was received at 02.15 AM. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Kalpana Mathur on 27.06.2022 and there was abnormality in vagina of victim. The hymen was freshly torned. Dr. Kalpana Mathur was examined as PW-14 and in her statement, she has proved report (Ex.P-5), there was a discharge present outside vagina and reddishness over vagina. PW-14 has collected sample for FSL and FSL report was exhibited as Ex.P-12. The applicant- accused was medically examined by PW-11 (Dr. P.C. Saini) on 29.06.2022. 7. The age of victim was 7-10 years and same was proved by PW-13 (Dr. Shyam Mohan Goyal) from ossification test. There is no other evidence on record to suggest the age of victim. Thus, victim was less than 12 years of age. 8. Victim was examined as PW-1 and from her deposition, she not only identified the present applicant, but also narrated sexual assault. The incident was further corroborated by father of victim and mother of victim, who examined as PW-2 and PW-3. 9. Herein this case, the grounds raised by applicant are not sufficient to grant SOS to the present applicant-accused. 10. The age of victim is less than 12 years and it is a case of penetrative sexual assault. 11. In view of aforesaid, the instant SOS application preferred by applicant-accused-Ramtudu S/o Ringta Tudu is hereby dismissed. 12. List for hearing in the month of August, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /37