[2025:RJ-JP:45834] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 502/2023 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2487/2022 Rohit Amarsariya Son Of Shri Anil Kumar Amarsariya Thathera, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of House No. 35, Jagdish Nagar Goner Road, Police Station Kho Nagoriya Jaipur (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail Kota) ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. G.A. Mr. Kalu Ram Sisodiya, Advocate (through VC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 14/11/2025 This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the appellant under Section 389 CrPC against the judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Child Right Protection Commission Act No.1, Kota in Special Sessions Case No. 37/2021, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment [2025:RJ-JP:45834] (2 of 3) [SOSA-502/2023] with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 4 months’ simple imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of alleged incident, due to spread of Covid-19, no sport activity was being conducted at the Badminton Hall and it was closed. He further submits that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in her statement(s) do not corroborate from the statement of PW-13 Vishal and the statement of PW-5 Dr. Sanjna Jorwal. He further submits that from a perusal of written report (Ex.-P/9), it is clear that no specific date was mentioned as to when the alleged incident took place. Rather, the written report (Ex.-P/9) was submitted on 19.12.2020, whereas the alleged incident took place in September, 2020. Thus, there was delay of about 3 months in submitting the report. He further submits that in the written report, there was no allegation of sexual intercourse by the accused appellant and thus, the case would not travel beyond Section 354 IPC. He further submits that there is no evidence of previous conviction against the accused appellant and he is in judicial custody from 22.12.2020. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, hence the sentence of the accused appellant be suspended. Learned PP appearing for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant have opposed the same. They submit that the accused appellant committed the heinous offence by deceiving the prosecutrix that he would make her a good badminton player. They further submit that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/5) as well as in her Court [2025:RJ-JP:45834] (3 of 3) [SOSA-502/2023] Statement, the prosecutrix levelled specific allegations against the accused appellant. They further submit that as per the birth certificate (Ex.P/21) issued by Municipal Corporation, Kota the prosecutrix date of birth is 18.2.2007. In this way, as on the date of alleged incident, she was about 13 years of age and thus, she was minor. They further submit that from the evidence, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended. Heard learned counsel for the parties considered the material on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the prosecutrix, the statement of the witness and the evidence available on record, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant. The suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/3