[2025:RJ-JP:43846] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1085/2025 In S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 1251/2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Rohitashv @ Rohitash Gurjar, R/o Dhani Jeeta Ka Bas. Tan Devta, Police Station Khetri Nagar District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (At Present Confined In Observation Home And Juvenile Home Jhunjhunu Raj) ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Saini with Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 01/11/2025 This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 1.5.2025 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 23/2023, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 363 IPC: To undergo 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment Under Section 366(A) in the alternative under Section 366 IPC: To undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. [2025:RJ-JP:43846] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1085/2025] 30,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment Under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act: To undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 years’ simple imprisonment Under Section 344 IPC: To undergo 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days’ simple imprisonment Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that in the application submitted by the prosecutrix to SHO, Police Station, Khetri Nagar (Ex.P/9), she stated that she herself went out of the house without intimating her parents. He further submits that the date of birth of the prosecutrix (i.e. 15.6.2006) as determined by the trial court is incorrect because her birth certificate was not annexed with the School Admission Form (Ex.P-01/). He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded as PW-4 stated that she alongwith the accused appellant went at different public places through public transport, but she did not make any hue and cry at the time when she was accompanying with the accused appellant, hence entire story is made up and have no substance. He further submits that the accused appellant was on bail during trial and he has submitted the Certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules in this regard. Hence, this suspension of sentence application be allowed and the [2025:RJ-JP:43846] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1085/2025] sentence of the accused appellant be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as in her Court statement, the prosecutrix levelled specific allegations that rape was committed with her by the accused appellant. He further submits school admission form of the prosecutrix was marked as Ex.P-01A, which was duly proved by PW-1 Anil Kumar, Head Master, Government Primary School, Gordhanpura, Police Station Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu, in which the prosecutrix date of birth was recorded as 15.6.2006. Thus, on the basis of said evidence, the trial court rightly determined the prosecutrix date of birth as 15.6.2006. 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 as also in view of the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the accused appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as in her Court statement, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant. Accordingly this suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/29