[2025:RJ-JP:47236] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2243/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2601/2022 Rakesh Son Of Shri Ramgilash, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Bamanpura, Police Station Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.). (Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur Since 1.3.2018) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Gouttam Ms. Nilanjans Gautam Mr. Rajal Jharwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/11/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Rakesh Son of Shri Ramgilash in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2021 in Sessions Case No.88/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, POSCO Act Cases, Karauli whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(d), 363, 450 of IPC and 5/6 and 16/17 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first suspension of sentence application of the present appellant was dismissed on 29.05.2023 and now second suspension of sentence application is preferred by the appellant. He further submits that [2025:RJ-JP:47236] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2243/2025] the appellant has already undergone 8 years 9 months against the awarded sentence of 20 years. He also submits that co-accused Jeetu was already granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 12.11.2021. He further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench after considering the case of the present appellant on 26.05.2025 has even granted interim parole bail on the basis of good conduct of the appellant. He also submits that false case has been registered against the appellant and this defence was brought on record but same was not considered by the trial Court. He also submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court while considering Third Suspension of Sentence Application in Criminal Appeal No. 421/2020 on 16.10.2025 has granted bail to the accused on basis of judgment in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2021) 10 SCC 773. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that the complainant has been informed about filing of the present suspension of sentence application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of a written report Ex.P-7 lodged by PW-6 father of minor victim about sexual assault with his eight years’ old daughter by Rakesh, a FIR No.72/2018 was registered at P.S. Suroth, District Karauli. After investigation, police has filed charge- sheet against Rakesh and Jeetu. After framing the charge, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC but they have not submitted any defence evidence. The trial Court has convicted the petitioner accused Rakesh and Jeetu under [2025:RJ-JP:47236] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2243/2025] Sections 363, 376(D), 450 of IPC and Section 5/6 and 16/17 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 20 years. A Co-ordinate Bench has allowed suspension of sentence application of Jeetu on 12.11.2021. This Court has dismissed first application for suspension of sentence of the present appellant on 29.05.2023. The age of victim is eight years and the material on record indicate itself that she is undergoing treatment. The victim was examined as PW-1 and we have considered the statement of victim. The medico legal report about rape is exhibited as Ex.P-1 and we have also considered the report along with evidence of PW-4 Dr. Ritu Gupta and PW-7 Dr. J.P. Meena. The report is sufficient to draw a conclusion that there was a penetrative assault in vagina of victim. A Co-ordinate Bench while considering case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) has allowed suspension of sentence application of two accused Dalveer and Mukut who were charged under Section 376(D) of IPC. Herein, the age of victim is less than 8 years and the evidence clearly suggest penetrative sexual assault with her. Therefore, this is not a fit case to allow the suspension of sentence application, even considering that substantive period of sentence already undergone by the appellant. 6. Hence, the suspension of sentence application is hereby dismissed. 7. List the criminal appeal in the month of January, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/13